Therefor

[Allen165]

"If the technician is unable to detect a malfunction, the services provided therefor shall be charged separately."

"Therefor" is supposed to denote the services provided for detecting a malfunction, but I wonder if it really does. If it doesn't, how else could one get that across without writing "the services provided for detecting a malfunction"?

How about this?

"If the technician is unable to detect a malfunction, the services provided for that purpose shall be charged separately."

Thanks!

 

[5jj]

"If the technician is unable to detect a malfunction, the services provided therefor shall be charged separately."

"Therefor" is supposed to denote the services provided for detecting a malfunction, but I wonder if it really does. It does, but it's very legalistically old fahioned.

"If the technician is unable to detect a malfunction, the services provided for that purpose shall be charged separately." fine

Actually, neither the antiquated version nor your improved version is perfect. A pedant might insist on something like:

If the technician is unable to detect a malfunction, the services provided in attempting to to detect a malfunction shall be charged separately.

Or:

If detection reveals no malfunction, detection services shall be charged separately.

Or: If detection services reveal no malfunction, they shall be charged separately.

 

[Allen165]

Actually, neither the antiquated version nor your improved version is perfect. A pedant might insist on something like:

If the technician is unable to detect a malfunction, the services provided in attempting to to detect a malfunction shall be charged separately./QUOTE]

How about shortening the above sentence to "the services provided in attempting to do so shall be charged separately"?

 

[5jj]

How about shortening the above sentence to "the services provided in attempting to do so shall be charged separately"?

I am personally happy with that. I suspect that corporations and their legal departments might not be. 'Attempting' might suggest that they tried and failed even though there was a malfuction. For the same reason, I am unhappy (now) about 'if the technician is unable..'

 

[Allen165]

I am personally happy with that. I suspect that corporations and their legal departments might not be. 'Attempting' might suggest that they tried and failed even though there was a malfuction. For the same reason, I am unhappy (now) about 'if the technician is unable..'

Don't fret over that.

Thanks.

 

[Allen165]

Actually, neither the antiquated version nor your improved version is perfect. A pedant might insist on something like:

If the technician is unable to detect a malfunction, the services provided in attempting to to detect a malfunction shall be charged separately.

Or:

If detection reveals no malfunction, detection services shall be charged separately.

Or: If detection services reveal no malfunction, they shall be charged separately.

I'd be interested in knowing why neither "therefor" nor "for that purpose" is ideal. Is it because they don't have a clear referent in the previous clause?

Thank you.

 

[5jj]

I'd be interested in knowing why neither "therefor" nor "for that purpose" is ideal. Is it because they don't have a clear referent in the previous clause?

"If the technician is unable to detect a malfunction, the services provided therefor shall be charged separately."

I may be being hypersensitive here. I think that the expressions could be interpreted as referring back to the malfunction or to the technician's inability. I think that it is not clear that they refer to the services.

I think.

 

[BobK]

It's worth noting that the archaic 'therefor' and the current 'therefore' are stressed differently, and have meanings that are almost diametrically opposed:

'A therefore B' means 'B, the reason therefor is/was A.
​

This makes it a good idea to avoid 'therefor' if you can (and you can;-)).

b