Interesting – I never heard the word consent, but I too would wonder if it still meant the same thing as the agreement (not that most users are aware of possible differences or would take care of it). I do not think the agreement is a generally accepted word. That is not to say that it is not used in certain environments or regions, but I do not remember hearing or reading it, and it seems strange to me. I would never use it myself. When you say “humans in my territory,” are you talking about a particular geographical area, profession or discipline? I`m curious about this group that uses the word. If you agree with me, I will make those changes. The point of the article is not to say “don`t use the abstract Noun chord.” English is blessed with an abundance of wealth, but if what you meant was approval and you used approval, because it sounded like what you wanted, but he knew nothing about the deal, it is something that English users need to be aware of. Have agreement and approval always meant exactly the same thing? Because there is no feeling and carelessness, is there? Is it possible that history is littered with agreements that were not agreements? One of the strange abstract names that has appeared lately is the word consent, because it says, “I agree with this position.” A Nounon is a person, a place or a thing. An abstract nominus is a concept. You can`t see, touch, smell, taste or hear a chord like that, see a truck, hear a noise, taste a sandwich or smell smoke. English has many ways of making abstract names.
The extension – ance is one of them with – ion and – ment. To anticipate an objection, yes, I am aware that consent is an old English word that dates back to at least the 16th century. But I also suppose that his ascent is not based on a re-appreciation of an ancient word, although rarely used. Rather, I assume that the word is used because people have forgotten or do not know consent. An agreement is an agreement, a compromise to get the two sides to find common ground. For things to be consistent, they are harmonious or not contradict each other. “If we agree, we should sign the agreement.” To be safe, I will continue to use the “agreement.” I`ve always used both; If we agree, we should sign the agreement. One shows that we feel that we agree and that we are in favour of ratification of this agreement.
I didn`t use it much. Using the agreement for an agreement is probably the linguistic equivalent of using a half-moon key instead of a combination key or a basic key. You can do it, but it still leaves a little bit of damage. If you want to use consent, end, whatever, but at least note that the old robust contract is in the toolbox. We almost ended up with “okay,” and then some damn Redneck had to mix “agreement” and “acceptance” and we`re back where we started. I am pushing forward the interpretation that the agreement is to agree on the truth: we feel like we agree, so let`s pretend we do. The agreement is the act of the agreement. This is an archaism rarely applied correctly today. That is an interesting question. Although the word “agreeance” appears in some dictionaries as synonymous with “convention,” it appears in the error list of the book “Common Errors in English Usage”: to anticipate another objection: yes, I celebrate the flexibility, adaptability and inventiveness of the English language, but it is one thing to find a new and useful word to meet a need.