adversely hurt existing shareholders

< Previous | Next >

arueng

Senior Member
CHINESE
All new equity issues are subject to approval by the board and should not adversely hurt existing shareholders.


Hi,
The above is from a simulated English test. It's a stand-alone question. Is "adversely" not only optional but also redundant to you? Thanks.
 
  • Biffo

    Senior Member
    English - England
    I would say redundant.

    I suggest

    should not hurt existing shareholders

    or

    should not adversely affect existing shareholders
     

    wandle

    Senior Member
    English - British
    'Adversely hurt' is either redundant or illogical, depending on the way you look at it. Either way, it is incorrect.

    I would not have expected the word 'hurt' in this context in the first place. It sounds to me too harsh and basic.
    However, the phrase 'adversely affect' would be appropriate.

    'Adversely affect' is a more general term which covers 'hurt' and any other term to express the idea of causing detriment, disadvantage or loss.
    It is more neutral in tone than 'hurt', which is why it would be more acceptable in financial writing, which often tends to use euphemism.
     

    rainbowboom

    New Member
    English-Australian
    I agree with Biffo, it should have some punctuation to make it easier:

    All new equity issues are subject to approval by the board and should not, adversely, hurt existing shareholders.

    By using the commas it encloses phrases or words that can be separated from the rest of the sentence. -- There is a proper name for this technique although, I can't recall it at the moment.

    So therefore it can be read: All new equity issues are subject to approval by the board and should not hurt existing shareholders.

    *It also still makes sense the other way as well if the punctuation is included!*
     

    Biffo

    Senior Member
    English - England
    I agree with Biffo, it should have some punctuation to make it easier:

    All new equity issues are subject to approval by the board and should not, adversely, hurt existing shareholders.
    :confused: You agree with me but I don't agree with you. :D:) I don't really understand what the sentence would mean, even if you have the punctuation. I can imagine a 'conversely' in that sort of construction but not an 'adversely'.
     

    rainbowboom

    New Member
    English-Australian
    :confused: You agree with me but I don't agree with you. :D:) I don't really understand what the sentence would mean, even if you have the punctuation. I can imagine a 'conversely' in that sort of construction but not an 'adversely'.
    It would have the same meaning as with the use of hurt. Although, stronger emphasis upon the reasons why as wandle has mentioned.

    Adversely is just being used as an adverb- however I don't see the point in why it was included, especially when this was an ESL test. Conversely would also work in this instance.
     

    gramman

    Senior Member
    I agree with Biffo's first reply. I see this as purely redundant. If you add "conversely," what is "hurt existing shareholders" being set in opposition to or contrasted with? The only thing I can think of where you could properly use "adversely hurt" would be to apply a modifier like "more" or "most."

    On a side note, "the approval of the board" doesn't seem like much of a check on the issuance of new equity. What about existing shareholders?

    Just my two shares of penny stock. ;)
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top