If you found this
DJ
"If you find this, please return this xxx to (some address)"
I'm wondering if any of you have seen this kind of note or wording in
the back of some notebooks or some important belongings. Is it ok to write:
"__If you found this__, please return this xxx to (...)"
(The later part can be something else to the same effect).
Thanks!
-- DJ
tony cooper
Can you write that? Certainly. Nothing wrong with it other than it's
a bit more wordy than necessary.
"If found, please return to __________." would suffice.
The last time I wrote something like that was when we moved from
Chicago to Indianapolis in the 60s. My wife, unfamiliar with the
city, took the bus home from work and kept getting on the wrong bus or
getting off at the wrong place. I made a badge for her with wording
as above. She was not amused.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
DJ
<snipped>
> Can you write that? Certainly. Nothing wrong with it other than it's
> a bit more wordy than necessary.
>
> "If found, please return to __________." would suffice.
Thanks!!
Yeah, "If found..." is even better!
(It's just that the other person said it has to be "if ...find.." to be
correct.)
- DJ
Mike M
(Looks on back of glasses case) "If found, please phone: [number]"
Mike M
cybercypher
The other person is right. If you use the conditional "If you ...",
then the verb must be "find", not "found".
OTOH, if the conditional were in a different sentence, for example,
"If you found this, why did John say that he found it?"
it might have to be in the past.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
"When you have to depend on those who used to depend on you, it's time
to say goodbye." Anymouse.
CDB
> DJ <n...@nospam.no> wrote
>
>> tony cooper wrote:
>> <snipped>
>>> Can you write that? Certainly. Nothing wrong with it other than
>>> it's a bit more wordy than necessary.
>>>
>>> "If found, please return to __________." would suffice.
>>
>> Thanks!!
>> Yeah, "If found..." is even better!
>> (It's just that the other person said it has to be "if ...find.."
>> to be correct.)
>
> The other person is right. If you use the conditional "If you ...",
> then the verb must be "find", not "found".
>
> OTOH, if the conditional were in a different sentence, for example,
>
> "If you found this, why did John say that he found it?"
>
> it might have to be in the past.
Agreed. One might add that Tony's version is common and correct, but
that the word "found" there is the past participle, not the simple
past. It's short for something like "If (this is) found, please
return (it) to ___".
DJ
- DJ
Mark Brader
>> "If you find this, please return this xxx to (some address)"
>> "__If you found this__, please return this xxx to (...)"
Tony Cooper:
> Nothing wrong with it other than it's a bit more wordy than necessary.
The simple past tense seems not quite right to me without the context
of the finding already established, although it would certainly be
understood. I would prefer "if you find this" or "if you have found
this".
> "If found, please return to __________." would suffice.
But for most purposes this shorter version is best.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Beware the Calends of April also."
m...@vex.net -- Peter Neumann
Joe Fineman
That doesn't ring true to me. The original wording is from the point
of view of the writer, and the present tense stands in for the future,
as it usually does in dependent clauses. (At the time of writing, of
course, the possible finding is in the future.) The writer *might*
have courteously adopted the point of view of the reader, but in that
case the finding is in the immediate past with vivid effect on the
present, so the right wording would be "If you have found this...".
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: Some things are true even though some people say them. :||
Arcadian Rises
> D.J. asks about:
>
> >> "If you find this, please return this xxx to (some address)"
> >> "__If you found this__, please return this xxx to (...)"
>
> Tony Cooper:
>
> > Nothing wrong with it other than it's a bit more wordy than necessary.
>
> The simple past tense seems not quite right to me without the context
> of the finding already established, although it would certainly be
> understood. I would prefer "if you find this" or "if you have found
> this".
>
> > "If found, please return to __________." would suffice.
>
> But for most purposes this shorter version is best.
Not in this case. If you want the finder to go to the trouble of
returning your lost item, you must be very persuasive or, at least,
write something cute or intriguing.
As for the dilema "If you find" vs. "if you found" I'd opt for "if you
find yourself in the possession of these glasses, please call me
at ...; but if you don't [ find yourself in such possession] please
don't bother to call me".
tony cooper
wrote:
>DJ <n...@nospam.no> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> "If you find this, please return this xxx to (some address)"
>>
>> I'm wondering if any of you have seen this kind of note or wording
>> in the back of some notebooks or some important belongings. Is it ok
>> to write:
>>
>> "__If you found this__, please return this xxx to (...)" (The later
>> part can be something else to the same effect).
>
>That doesn't ring true to me. The original wording is from the point
>of view of the writer, and the present tense stands in for the future,
>as it usually does in dependent clauses. (At the time of writing, of
>course, the possible finding is in the future.) The writer *might*
>have courteously adopted the point of view of the reader, but in that
>case the finding is in the immediate past with vivid effect on the
>present, so the right wording would be "If you have found this...".
To insure return, "Large reward for return of this to __________".
the Omrud
> To insure return, "Large reward for return of this to __________".
obAUE: "insure"? I draw a clear distinction between "insure" and
"ensure" - the former involves buying a policy from an insurance
company; the latter indicates a guaranteed outcome.
--
David
=====
tony cooper
wrote:
Agreed. I thought of that just as I hit "send" but decided that the
error was not worth a correcting post. Just a thinko.
I think that "insure" is used to mean "ensure" by many Americans in
informal writing, but I don't agree with the use.
Pat Durkin
"the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.20eed47f1...@news.ntlworld.com...
I don't think I draw a clear line between the two, but probably fall on
the same side as you do, when I think about it.
Oh, there is a very sweet nutrition supplement labelled "Ensure". My
sister had to drink the stuff after a massive infection (SA) followed
her heart bypass surgery. I still think the nurses and doctors were
nuts. What did they think contributed to her heart/vascular problems
and susceptibility to infections, if not her diabetes?
I haven't found a no-sugar form of it. Basically, before this time, I
was familiar with its use among frail old people.
Skitt
> "the Omrud" wrote:
>> tony_co...@earthlink.net had it ...
>>> To insure return, "Large reward for return of this to __________".
>>
>> obAUE: "insure"? I draw a clear distinction between "insure" and
>> "ensure" - the former involves buying a policy from an insurance
>> company; the latter indicates a guaranteed outcome.
>
> I don't think I draw a clear line between the two, but probably fall
> on the same side as you do, when I think about it.
>
> Oh, there is a very sweet nutrition supplement labelled "Ensure". My
> sister had to drink the stuff after a massive infection (SA) followed
> her heart bypass surgery.
Oh, man! No heart in her circulatory system?
--
Skitt
making a heartless comment
Robin Bignall
wrote:
The sugar is in it probably as a cheap way of providing calories in
addition to the vitamins and minerals. The stuff always gave me
diarrhea when I had to take it in hospital, and that's bad news for
someone with an ileostomy and a shortened ileum. I didn't care for
the artificial flavouring, either. A better product is Two Cal, which
is not sweet.
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England
Al in Dallas
The dictionaries don't deprecate the usage you don't agree with.
--
Al in St. Lou