I don't think dingbat meant to suggest that there was anything gramatically wrong with the wording - since there isn't. "Undertaking" can be a noun as well as part of the verb 'to undertake' - and has the meaning of 'a business' - as in "a commercial undertaking". Hence "an [electricity] supply undertaking" would be perfectly grammatically acceptable, with a meaning that you and I would interpret as 'DNO'.
We might, but the word should be 'supplier' not supply.
No, "a supplier undertaking"
would be grammatically incorrect.
'. . . after consultation with the supply undertaking' DOES NOT MAKE SENSE, in ANY sentence that I can think of, yes, it's late and i'm probably missing something obvious so please do enlighten me otherwise.
It's quite unusual, and pretty 'old-fashioned', language (probably most often seen in legal circles these days), but it is correct, and does actually make sense (to those 'sad' or old enough to be familiar with such unusual language
). For example, "an import undertaking" (
not 'an importer undertaking') would mean a business engaged in import. One way in which the word is still quite often used as a noun in everyday language in such contexts as "re-wiring the whole building was a major undertaking".
As I understand it, dingbat's point (which many might feel was over-pedantic) is that the question used the phrase "a supply undertaking", rather than "Local distributor" (which is the precise wording used in the Table 54.8 note) - and therefore that the statemnt of answer D was technically incorrect in terms of the exact words used in the regs.
No I think his point was that the question is about regs in '7671, and not other factors which might affect those regs as they stand (such as notes).
I'm sure he will correct me if necessary, but I think your 'No' is probably incorrect. True, he said that the question is 'about BS7671', but I took his point to be that only answers which corresponded exactly with the words used in BS7671 would be considered correct; maybe I misinterpreted him. He seemed to be agreeing that 'consult the DNO' would be a correct answer, but that Answer D (or any other answer) did not mention 'DNO' (which he seemed to be implying is what the note in BS7671 says, even though it doesn't) - only 'supply undertaking'. He wrote:
The incorrect wording of answer d) when compared to the note to table 54.8 is the clue that this answer is the deliberate detractor. You're talking about consulting the DNO yet no such answer is offered up.
If dingbat were being consistent in his approach (which doesn't appear to be the case), he would also have said the same thing (i.e. that Answer D was 'wrong') if answer D had referred to "DNO" - since (just like "supply undertaking") that is not the precise wording used in the regs.
You are right but I think it was someone else arguing that, holmslaw?
As above .... the quote above comes from dingbat's first post in this thread.
Whatever, I think that everyone but dingbat agrees that it was a badly worded question. The mere existence of this complicated debate about grammar etc. (which is going to nothing to help my reputation in the eyes of some members of this forum!!) is surely enough to confirm that?!
Kind Regards, John