I (should) think that one should save should for matters of obligation, so of course I would think that one would use would instead of should for volition, as one should, Britain.
I could use a grammar/sentence structure ruling, and this seems as good of a place as any to ask...
I work in a mail order business and we still take some orders over the phone from customers who have accounts with us. And since they pay on terms (30 day), they sometimes require us to reference their purchase order number on the invoice in order for payment to be made.
So at the time of the order, we always ask if they want us to reference their purchase order number on the invoice.
But when taking an order over the phone, a coworker of mine always asks:
"Do you want a purchase order number referenced?"
This invariably leads to confusion. Many customers seem to think he's asking if they would like us to put some sort of reference number of ours on the order (we all sit in one big room so I can hear the initial question as well as his follow up responses).
To me, this way of posing the question does not make it clear who's purchase order number will be referenced, or by whom (I ask: "Would you like to reference a purchase order number for this order?", and there's never any confusion).
For decades now I've teased him about it being an incorrect way to pose this question, but I'm not totally sure if a: I'm actually right, and b: if I am right, how to explain it in technical terms.
Any English nerds want to weigh in on this very important matter? ~~~~>insert requisite lol
You nailed the office talk, Hall. Mike nailed the basics. Your friend is using a bad mixture of active and passive voices that leaves the topic of the sentence vague as to whether it's the subject or the object. He could keep his structure if he finished it with "referenced by you."
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: intentionally blank
"Air quotes."
"Air quotes."
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Imagine
Detailed topic sentences, the
Detailed topic sentences, the fact that I have reversed lay and lie, and Mike e's denial of the Serial Comma.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ImusDeadCo
would of could of should of
would of
could of
should of
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: intentionally blank
People who think run-on
People who think run-on sentences are overly long rather than ill-punctuated.
Lay and lie still trip me up, so I avoid them and find other ways to say what needs to be said, which I've been told is a creative response.
And yeah, unnecessary commas.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Imagine
Had better
Had better
Have got
Have a shower
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: intentionally blank
> Have got
> Have got
I've Got a Feeling
https://youtu.be/ztIEogFr9j4
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Imagine
I would think that one would
I (should) think that one should save should for matters of obligation, so of course I would think that one would use would instead of should for volition, as one should, Britain.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Imagine
I've got is okay, but I have
I've got is okay, but I have is best.
I've gotten?
I kan haz'z?
Ayeeeeee
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: jazfish
1,005,001,000
1,005,001,000
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: treat island
I love you guys.
I love commas, and I love you guys.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: jon
people that say "never the
people that say "never the mind".
etc.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: intentionally blank
Acidheads on grammar. It's a
Acidheads on grammar. It's a funny universe.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: jon
funny, like a clown? or what?
funny, like a clown? or what??
funny.
or... Funny!!!!!!!!!!
which is it?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: intentionally blank
Funny like the crest of a
Funny like the crest of a wave perpetually emerging into being.
Ha ha! Ha ha!
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: jon
ÐÂŵÚÈ Ø£2► ŒŶ⇔F
ÐÂŵÚÈ Ø£2► ŒŶ⇔F
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: jon
^^^ you KNOW you want some...
^^^ you KNOW you want some......
but am i going to share????
hmmmph.... perhaps..
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: fishcane
folks who get their noses out
folks who get their noses out of joint over other folks grammar.....
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: smiley
people who use "literally" to
people who use "literally" to illustrate something decidedly not literal.
it's an epidemic.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Imagine
fishcane, please define "get
fishcane, please define "get their noses out of joint [sic]."
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Imagine
I know, 73. It has me
I know, 73. It has me climbing up the walls.
Love you too, Judit.
>>>Acidheads...
Yep :)
>>>perpetually emerging
AH
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: intentionally blank
> ÐÂŵÚÈ Ø£2► ŒŶ⇔F
> ÐÂŵÚÈ Ø£2► ŒŶ⇔F
I want some. Maybe you can hook me up in Ventura next week, Jonny?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Briank
Gross and negligent misuse of
Gross and negligent misuse of "ironic." No, it's not ironic if someone calls you just as you're thinking of them. It's serendipitous.
I'm going to the concert too.
vs.
I too am going to the concert.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Imagine
Adverbs after To Be and
Adverbs go after To Be and before most other verbs, basically.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: jon
thats ironic brian, your
thats ironic brian, your going to the show as well?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Lord Kalvert
"It is what it is" Phooey
"It is what it is"
Phooey
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Briank
Not ironic, Jonny, fortuitous
Not ironic, Jonny, fortuitous, because I'm going to hook you up with a fatty and a beer.
Shouldn't it be, "Adverbs basically go after..."?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: jon
so, its iconic? by stature?
so, its iconic? by stature?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Def. High
"One in the same"
"One in the same"
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: jon
"It's all good, yo....."
"It's all good, yo....."
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Briank
For all intensive purposes, I
For all intensive purposes, I really could care less.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: jon
less..... less than what?
less..... less than what? like a clown? less like, "its more, but less"?
what exactly is less/?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Def. High
Sless is more.
Sless is more.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: jon
yet, more is not neceselary
yet, more is not neceselary less.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Def. High
More or less.
More or less.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Fly
Lesh is more
Lesh is more
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: aiq
Not exactly grammar but the
Not exactly grammar but the use of verse for versus chaps my hide.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: |-|/-\|_|_
I need a grammar/sentence
I could use a grammar/sentence structure ruling, and this seems as good of a place as any to ask...
I work in a mail order business and we still take some orders over the phone from customers who have accounts with us. And since they pay on terms (30 day), they sometimes require us to reference their purchase order number on the invoice in order for payment to be made.
So at the time of the order, we always ask if they want us to reference their purchase order number on the invoice.
But when taking an order over the phone, a coworker of mine always asks:
"Do you want a purchase order number referenced?"
This invariably leads to confusion. Many customers seem to think he's asking if they would like us to put some sort of reference number of ours on the order (we all sit in one big room so I can hear the initial question as well as his follow up responses).
To me, this way of posing the question does not make it clear who's purchase order number will be referenced, or by whom (I ask: "Would you like to reference a purchase order number for this order?", and there's never any confusion).
For decades now I've teased him about it being an incorrect way to pose this question, but I'm not totally sure if a: I'm actually right, and b: if I am right, how to explain it in technical terms.
Any English nerds want to weigh in on this very important matter? ~~~~>insert requisite lol
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: intentionally blank
How about this: Should your
How about this: Should your purchase order number appear on our invoice for this sale?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Imagine
You nailed it, Hall. He's
You nailed the office talk, Hall. Mike nailed the basics. Your friend is using a bad mixture of active and passive voices that leaves the topic of the sentence vague as to whether it's the subject or the object. He could keep his structure if he finished it with "referenced by you."
At least, it's a possibility.
Edit: Mike's example is best.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: |-|/-\|_|_
thanks guys.
thanks guys.
Mike, I assume a proper British accent should be employed when posing it in that way?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Imagine
Back to work for me. See yall
Back to work for me. See yall.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: intentionally blank
Through clenched jaws should
Through clenched jaws should do it, Hall.