Correct usage

Kewreeuss

I came across this sentence in an article I was reading in the paper this morning: How could such a costly project not have mitigated against any threat from flooding at planning stage?
'Mitigated against' is new to me. Is it correct?
Thanks

No, I don't think that is correct. Doesn't really make any sense either

pickarooney

It's incorrectly used instead of militate in this instance. I've seen this mistake a few times before.

P. Breathnach

pickarooney wrote: »

It's incorrectly used instead of militate in this instance. I've seen this mistake a few times before.

It's one of those situations where an inaccurate use of a word might become so commonplace that, before you know it, it has become established usage. I wrack my brain to think of other instances.

But even if "militated" were substituted for "mitigated", it's still a very poor sentence.

Imagine how a teacher of English would struggle to suggest how it might be improved. It's a "tear it up and start again" exercise.

Yakuza

Simply deleting "against" makes it a reasonable sentence, if you ask me.

MathsManiac

Yakuza wrote: »

Simply deleting "against" makes it a reasonable sentence, if you ask me.

It would be correct alright, but would it be sensible? Can you mitigate a threat of flooding at planning stage? Or do you actually have to do something to mitigate a threat of flooding? Building flood defences would mitigate a risk of flooding, but planning to build them wouldn't!

Yakuza

I don't think it's a huge stretch of the imagination to assume that sentence in the article quoted by the OP was trying to convey that the object depicted in the plans wasn't good enough to mitigate a flood threat, as opposed to the actual plans themselves.

Edit:
0.25 seconds of googling the above text yielded the original article here: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/hospital-evacuated-after-storms-cause-flood-chaos-29452625.html

Some context :

A large section of the hospital was left under water including the Emergency Department, Radiology, Outpatients, Pathology and Medical Records, several wards and kitchens. The new A&E unit – which was opened by Health Minister James Reilly just three months ago – was badly damaged.

There is no risk to patients currently in the hospital, stated the HSE West.

Sean Murphy, general manager at Letterkenny General Hospital, said staff and authorities were working through the night to ensure the area was cleared of water. "We are able to use the day surgery and outpatient facilities," he said.

However, local Sinn Fein TD Padraig Mac Lochlainn said he would be demanding answers from the HSE as this was the second time the unit flooded.

"I will be demanding answers from the HSE on why lessons from the previous flooding were not learnt? How could such a costly project not have mitigated against any threat from flooding at planning stage?" he said.

Basically, the TD is asking why the plans for this new A&E unit didn't contain anything related to flooding, given that the area had been flooded before.

I agree that it's not the clearest of sentences, but I still maintain that removing "against" would leave the sentence both grammatically correct and sensible, especially given the context of the previous paragraphs.

Kewreeuss

Thanks everyone for commenting.
After a bit of thought, i would go with 'allowed for' or at a stretch 'anticipated'.
I understand what the guy meant to say. How he said it grated!

P. Breathnach

Kewreeuss wrote: »

... After a bit of thought, i would go with 'allowed for' or at a stretch 'anticipated'....

I'd prefer "anticipated".

Kewreeuss

Here is another one I came across today:
Sitting in a small circle reading a fantastic play helmed by a talented and passionate director.......

Helmed? Oh, Jeez!