[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by anupmathur

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

I think you are right!

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 have been thinking along similar lines, but I wonder if there is a technical answer?

Also, I lived in London, which is very general, but I also lived in Durham Road. At No 31! Now I'm confused again.

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?

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'.

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

Should you get sick, you should go to the doctor.

No problems with either should.

[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

....
Also, I lived in London, which is very general, but I also lived in Durham Road. At No 31! Now I'm confused again.
...

Hmm, try to see it this way:
"Also, I lived in London..." - Correct. One lives IN a city, not AT a city.
"... but I also lived in Durham Road..." - sounds incorrect. Ought to be "at Durham Road".
"... At No 31". - Correct. At the plot numbered 31, or, you could say, "in the house at 31 Durham Road".

The charm of English is in that it confounds!
Tends to reduce perfectly literate gentlemen to tears, at times!

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

....
Should you get sick, you should go to the doctor.
....

I would imagine it is better to use 'ought', and 'a', rather than 'the'.
Should you get sick, you ought to go to a doctor.

[Thad E Ginathom]

No, one lives in a street, not at a street. It is possible to live on the street, but we hope to avoid that!

(No, wait:"Where is the Tamil shop?" "It is on High Street North.")

Yes, English confounds!

(And yes, to those who have lived in London, my last twenty years there were spent in the Manor Park, East Ham and Forest Gate areas.)

[mallumowgli]

Originally Posted by anupmathur

I would imagine it is better to use 'ought', and 'a', rather than 'the'.
Should you get sick, you ought to go to a doctor.

Both should and ought are correct in this sentence, grammatically.

There is a difference in the meaning

A teacher may say 'ought to' whereas a mother would say "should'

[Thad E Ginathom]

Of course, using the same word twice in the sentence was bad style anyway, but as it was for the purpose of illustrating different meanings, I'll let myself get away with it

[honeybee]

Well, you all must have heard some pickup lines from novels or movies, where one of the people asks this question: "At your place or mine?" - The 'at' is nowadays omitted, but usually that's how you would ask the question. So I guess it still must be something specific when you use 'at' and something too large to be specific when you use 'in'.

For e.g.
Our company had an office in Bhopal - location is not clear
Our company had an office in MP Nagar, Bhopal - choice has narrowed down but still not precise
Our company had an office at xyz building, street no. pqr, MP Nagar, Bhopal - This is a precise location and I may use 'at' here.

I hope you get my drift...

[Thad E Ginathom]

"At your place or mine?" - The 'at' is nowadays omitted

As far as I remember (I'm not at all a movie buff), in American and British movies, it always was. The inherently suggestive question would simply be, "Your place, or mine?" No at.

[SS-Traveller]

A must-read article as far as this thread is concerned.

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/05/grammar-snobbery/

The debate is in the question of what entails “successful communication.” And there are two schools of thought on this.

Prescriptive grammar – which is what “grammar snobs” champion – says that there’s such a thing as one true, honest, pure form of a language and that only that version is correct or acceptable.

Descriptive grammar, on the other hand, argues that however a language is being used to communicate effectively is correct – because that is the basic purpose of language.

So, if a person wrote a Facebook comment that said “That their was an example of cissexism,” a prescriptive grammarian might comment back, “I think you mean ‘there,’” and a descriptive grammarian might respond, “You understood what they meant.”

[mallumowgli]

Originally Posted by SS-Traveller

A must-read article as far as this thread is concerned.

Can understand the point the article is trying to make. But at the same time I somehow feel that using 'their' instead of 'there' (on similar lines than/then, break/brake etc) can never be accepted as descriptive grammar. It is just plain wrong English. Just (dare) substitute 'their' in this sentence 'this shaft belongs up there'

Since am not very good in writing a beautiful forceful sentence with perfect grammar, I just fall in love when someone does. Like this, in the above-referred article

Aysha of Diaspora Defiance writes:

when my mother struggles to spell a word in English
I want to break the entire language
into little pieces
so the edges of these letters
will stop cutting her

[silversteed]

I've been seeing these usages quite often, of late:
"We'll schedule a meeting post lunch"
"We started around 11:00 AM and wrapped up around 3:00 PM, post which we went to friend's place"
"I am heading to navi-mumbai this sunday, post which I will let you know the status"

Doesn't this word "post" sound awkward there? Trying to sound polished/formal? I just hate it.

"SpiceJet... has announced an ‘On-Time Guarantee’ programme wherein the airline guarantees to compensate passengers in case of..." (Source: http://www.thehindu.com/business/Ind...cle5979115.ece)
"...we appreciate that citizens face many situations wherein they lack information..." (Source: http://www.registertovote.in/initiative.php)

Why use "wherein"? "In which" would've sounded better, IMO.

Originally Posted by mallumowgli

Can understand the point the article is trying to make. But at the same time I somehow feel that using 'their' instead of 'there' (on similar lines than/then, break/brake etc) can never be accepted as descriptive grammar. It is just plain wrong English. Just (dare) substitute 'their' in this sentence 'this shaft belongs up there'

Can't agree with you more on that!

[mallumowgli]

Originally Posted by silversteed

"SpiceJet... has announced an ‘On-Time Guarantee’ programme wherein the airline guarantees to compensate passengers in case of..." (Source: http://www.thehindu.com/business/Ind...cle5979115.ece)
"...we appreciate that citizens face many situations wherein they lack information..." (Source: http://www.registertovote.in/initiative.php)

Why use "wherein"? "In which" would've sounded better, IMO.

Not sure about the second usage, but I think wherein is a wrong word for what SpiceJet has to convey

[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by mallumowgli

Not sure about the second usage, but I think wherein is a wrong word for what SpiceJet has to convey

But then, we all know what journalism is all about in our country!
People who never studied the language with any degree of interest or attention become 'reporters/journalists'!

[AVR]

Roadmap for the Gujarat Model:

[JohnyBoy]

Originally Posted by Rehaan

... It's also a carry-over from other softwares (eg. facebook, twitter and some other forums) where using the symbol as a prefix sends a notification to that username.
...
R

Softwares is wrong. Plural is also software.
Rehaan, "It's also a carry-over from other online applications (eg: facebook... " may be better.

[TheLizardKing]

I can't believe it took me so long to find this thread, self-confessed grammar Nazi that I am. I am subscribing right away, and will post here regularly. I love the English language, and my antennae are always seeking out grammatical mistakes.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

No, one lives in a street, not at a street. It is possible to live on the street, but we hope to avoid that!

(No, wait:"Where is the Tamil shop?" "It is on High Street North.")

Yes, English confounds!

(And yes, to those who have lived in London, my last twenty years there were spent in the Manor Park, East Ham and Forest Gate areas.)

I just Googled "in" vs "on", and guess what? "in" is British English (English English? ) while "on" is American English.

Happy to add to the confusion.