.. and for her not to worry

[pontios]

Καλημέρα και καλή εβδομάδα.


I was working on this sentence, which at first glance seemed right and didn't bother me, but then I stopped to think about it and realised that the tagged-on phrase at the end didn't really fit in logically (it's not logically satisfying).

He told her his ship needed repairs and that he would be returning home to Oradea in a month's time and for her not to worry.

If the sentence is broken down, he told her three things: he told her his ship needed repairs, he told her that he would be returning home in a month's time .... and he told for her not to worry?

If the phrase is changed from "and for her not to worry" to "and not to worry" or "and she shouldn't/needn't worry" then it makes sense.

The internet is littered with this phrase used in the same illogical way; for example:

The next thing I knew I was telling her that her son had arrived on the other side and for her not to worry.

= I was telling for her not to worry?

Should I rework my sentence and state it more logically or should I just accept the tagged-on phrase?
Any suggestions?

 

[cougr]

Good morning pontios,

It's a set expression and the way you've worded the sentence sounds perfectly natural to me.

 

[pontios]

Good morning pontios,

It's a set expression and the way you've worded the sentence sounds perfectly natural to me.

Thanks, cougr.
I have a habit of overthinking things and second-guessing myself.

 

[cougr]

Good morning pontios,

........the way you've worded the sentence sounds perfectly natural to me.

That's notwithstanding the fact that there will always be someone to advise that ideally it should be reworded so as to not contain both "ands".

 

[nickel]

Είναι από τις συντάξεις που δεν ξέρω πώς κατέληξαν εκεί που είναι. Θα άξιζε να το ψάξουμε.

Καλή είναι πάντως και η λύση που προτείνεις:
He told her his ship needed repairs and he would be returning home to Oradea in a month's time, so she shouldn't worry.

 

[pontios]

Είναι από τις συντάξεις που δεν ξέρω πώς κατέληξαν εκεί που είναι. Θα άξιζε να το ψάξουμε.

Σας ευχαριστώ και τους δύο για τις απαντήσεις.

Έψαξα στο διαδίκτυο και δεν μπορούσε να βρω καμία εξήγηση ως προς την προέλευση της φράσης.

Νομίζω είναι μία από αυτές τις περίεργες φράσεις που συνήθως περνούν απαρατήρητες και χρησιμοποιούνται ανενδοίαστα, οι οποίες ίσως θα έπρεπε να απορριφθούν μία προς μία για λόγους αρχής.

BTW, I've used both your suggestions and decided to go with this:

He told her his ship needed repairs and that he would be returning home to Oradea in a month's time, so there was no need for her to worry.

 

[pontios]

... στην δεύτερη γραμμή, μπορούσε = μπορούσα!

 

[Philip]

It's the distance between "told her" and "for her not to worry" that does it. The longer or more complex the sentence, the easier it is to get away with this sort of thingThe memory of the exact wording fades over time and distance, and it's the semantics that lingers longest in the mind. Your reductions point up the problem, but it needs a good eye to spot the anomaly in the first place. In speech especially, hardly anyone would notice that there was a problem, since it creates no comprehension problem.

 

[pontios]

Καλή εξήγηση, Philip - μάλλον κάπως έτσι θα έχει προκύψει και τελικά ριζώσει αυτή η παράξενη φράση.

Είναι καθήκον μας ως πολίτες αυτού του φόρουμ να αναφέρουμε τυχόν παραξενιές όταν τυχαίνει να τις αντιμετωπίζουμε ή αποκαλύπτουμε από καιρό σε καιρό. :)