[Thad E Ginathom]

Interesting. That doesn't seem right to me, but I guess it is.

Please see this definition of Comprise. The 'usage notes' are interesting.

[carboy]

I opened a new shop.
I opened a new factory.
People use the above all time when they want to say that they started something new.
This is wrong, right? You can only open stuff which were closed before.

[mallumowgli]

Originally Posted by carboy

I opened a new shop.
I opened a new factory.
People use the above all time when they want to say that they started something new.
This is wrong, right? You can only open stuff which were closed before.

Opened a factory is correct. You can open a new business, open a new branch office. Or you can declare open an event.

And if the branch office was closed, then you can re-open it

Here it is not used in the sense of 'opening a lid' but rather as 'starting new'

[mallumowgli]

Further to my earlier post no: 2046, here is what I was talking about

http://auto.ndtv.com/news/exclusive-...e-otherstories

Is Toyota Etios launching a rocket?

[Thad E Ginathom]

Here's one for the professors of English, ie those who studied it, rather than just grew up speaking it...

at and in

I used to live in London, I know live in Chennai. "At" would be wrong for either of those, and yet it is commonly used. In British English (don't know about American), one lives in a city, not at it.

However, I used to work at the head office of ABCXYZ Marine Insurance, in the IT department.

I'm at a loss to understand the logic, and prepared to believe that, being English, there isn't one!

[tilt]

Thad, I have never heard "at" being used w.r.t. city - I have only heard "in"; and this has been my experience in India, UK, Australia, all over Western Europe, USA and Canada.

Re. place of work, my experience is the same as yours. On works "at" a company "in" a department or function. I too do not understand the logic, but like you said, the English language acknowledges rules more in the exception than in the observance.

I did study English grammar in school (who hasn't?), but I've forgotten more than I have ever learnt I suppose. However, I did grow up speaking English almost exclusively right from Kindergarten (used to be called Nursery class in Madras when I was growing up).

The one difference between US and rest-of-the-world usage is when asking the question: US people ask "Where do you work at?" and the rest-of-the-world asks "Where do you work?"

Cheers

[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

.....

I'm at a loss to understand the logic, and prepared to believe that, being English, there isn't one!

"I'm at a loss to understand the logic, and prepared to believe that, being English, there isn't any"!

The use of 'one' with 'logic' does not sound right.
I believe the word should be 'any'.
What say, Thad?

[honeybee]

I think 'at' denotes a specific place, such as when specifying the building you stay at, or live in. A city would be probably too large. Or else 'stay' is always at, while 'live' is always in.

[zenren]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Here's one for the professors of English, ie those who studied it, rather than just grew up speaking it...

at and in

I used to live in London, I know live in Chennai. "At" would be wrong for either of those, and yet it is commonly used. In British English (don't know about American), one lives in a city, not at it.

However, I used to work at the head office of ABCXYZ Marine Insurance, in the IT department.

I'm at a loss to understand the logic, and prepared to believe that, being English, there isn't one!

Originally Posted by honeybee

I think 'at' denotes a specific place, such as when specifying the building you stay at, or live in. A city would be probably too large. Or else 'stay' is always at, while 'live' is always in.

I think "at" is usually used when the location is generic and "in" is used when the location is specific.

For example, London and Chennai are specific places while the head office is more of a generic term in the context and the specific location is the IT department.

[mallumowgli]

Originally Posted by anupmathur

"I'm at a loss to understand the logic, and prepared to believe that, being English, there isn't any"!

The use of 'one' with 'logic' does not sound right.
I believe the word should be 'any'.
What say, Thad?

I think there is a logic in what you are saying

[saket77]

Guys, need help on this one...
I have an instruction manual of an old HMV turntable, which, in one paragraph states-
"Should the turntable not perform satisfactorily, please take it to an authorised repair centre."

Is the usage of the word 'should' correct in the above sentence?

[mallumowgli]

Originally Posted by saket77

Guys, need help on this one...
I have an instruction manual of an old HMV turntable, which, in one paragraph states-
"Should the turntable not perform satisfactorily, please take it to an authorised repair centre."

Is the usage of the word 'should' correct in the above sentence?

Perfectly alright to use should. Used as a condition here. There is a subtle difference from using 'if' or 'in the event of'

[saket77]

Originally Posted by mallumowgli

Perfectly alright to use should. Used as a condition here. There is a subtle difference from using 'if' or 'in the event of'

Thanks.
What was confusing for me is that the word 'should' is mostly used for something that is 'favorable/ acceptable', unless used with the word 'not'/ 'should not'. eg.'You should take a balanced diet' and 'You should not go out in the sun'.

But I too believe that the sentence is correct because it states "Should the turntable not perform satisfactorily...".

[mallumowgli]

Originally Posted by saket77

Thanks.
What was confusing for me is that the word 'should' is mostly used for something that is 'favorable/ acceptable', unless used with the word 'not'/ 'should not'. eg.'You should take a balanced diet' and 'You should not go out in the sun'.

In the above the usage is as the past tense of shall.

Am not sure whether 'shall' may be used in any of the cases of the below sentence.

But I too believe that the sentence is correct because it states "Should the turntable not perform satisfactorily...".

'should' when used as condition is always 'should' (never 'shall')

Should you forget to bring the book, we will impose a fine
Should the line break, the whole thing will fall down

Edit : Just found a link in net explaining the usage

http://www.eslcafe.com/grammar/condi...ntences09.html

[SS-Traveller]

Originally Posted by mallumowgli

Perfectly alright...

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/wo...ght-or-alright

‘All right’ or ‘alright’?

Is it acceptable to write alright as one word, rather than two separate ones? For example:

She calls them whenever she is travelling to assure them she is alright.

Similar ‘merged’ words such as altogether and already have been accepted in standard English for a very long time, so there is no logical reason to object to the one-word form alright. Nevertheless, many people dislike it and regard it as incorrect, so it’s best to avoid using alright in formal writing. Write it as two separate words instead:

She calls them whenever she is travelling to assure them she is all right.