Results 1 to 5 of 5

    • Join Date: Jul 2009
    • Posts: 8
    #1

    why has it yet to bring any charges?

    Hi,

    Here is the excerpt from an article in New York Times:

    Many questions remain unanswered in the case, legal experts say. Among them: if China has evidence that Rio Tinto engaged in bribery, why has it yet to bring any charges against the company itself? It is also not clear why the police or prosecutors have yet to take legal action against Chinese individuals or companies that allegedly received bribes in exchange for providing inside information. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/bu...?_r=1&ref=asia)

    It seems to me that the highlighted question is grammatically wrong. I think it's correct to say "why does it yet have to bring any charges against the company itself".

    Thanks!

  1. bhaisahab's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • Ireland

    • Join Date: Apr 2008
    • Posts: 25,627
    #2

    Re: why has it yet to bring any charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by michael_1999 View Post
    Hi,

    Here is the excerpt from an article in New York Times:

    Many questions remain unanswered in the case, legal experts say. Among them: if China has evidence that Rio Tinto engaged in bribery, why has it yet to bring any charges against the company itself? It is also not clear why the police or prosecutors have yet to take legal action against Chinese individuals or companies that allegedly received bribes in exchange for providing inside information. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/bu...?_r=1&ref=asia)

    It seems to me that the highlighted question is grammatically wrong. I think it's correct to say "why does it yet have to bring any charges against the company itself".

    Thanks!
    The highlighted question is correct.

  2. Raymott's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 24,103
    #3

    Re: why has it yet to bring any charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by michael_1999 View Post
    Hi,

    Here is the excerpt from an article in New York Times:

    Many questions remain unanswered in the case, legal experts say. Among them: if China has evidence that Rio Tinto engaged in bribery, why has it yet to bring any charges against the company itself? It is also not clear why the police or prosecutors have yet to take legal action against Chinese individuals or companies that allegedly received bribes in exchange for providing inside information. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/bu...?_r=1&ref=asia)

    It seems to me that the highlighted question is grammatically wrong. I think it's correct to say "why does it yet have to bring any charges against the company itself".

    Thanks!
    You might be misinterpreting the sentence.
    In the West, if the government has evidence, they bring charges.
    Perhaps in China, if the government has no evidence, they bring charges; but if they do have evidence, they don't bother.
    That would explain a reading of the original that says: "If China has evidence, why do they have to bring charges?" - which is basically what your suggested correction means.
    (Apologies if I've made any incorrect assumptions. It's only a tentative explanation of your confusion).


    • Join Date: Jul 2009
    • Posts: 8
    #4

    Re: why has it yet to bring any charges?

    Thank you very much, bhaisahab and Raymott.

    I'm still confused.

    Does the original sentence mean "if China has evidence that Rio Tinto engaged in bribery, why does it have to bring any charges against the four employees instead of the company itself?"

  3. bhaisahab's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • Ireland

    • Join Date: Apr 2008
    • Posts: 25,627
    #5

    Re: why has it yet to bring any charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by michael_1999 View Post
    Thank you very much, bhaisahab and Raymott.

    I'm still confused.

    Does the original sentence mean "if China has evidence that Rio Tinto engaged in bribery, why does it have to bring any charges against the four employees instead of the company itself?"
    Basically yes, it is asking why China hasn't brought charges against the company, if there is evidence against them.

Similar Threads

  1. Pl. Check my bank charges complain letter
    By dhara in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-Jun-2009, 16:10
  2. to bring about
    By jctgf in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 15-Sep-2008, 19:30
  3. bring forward
    By angliholic in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-Oct-2007, 06:25
  4. bring to X for
    By apparrode in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 21-Oct-2003, 17:11

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •