The reason I'm writing this email is to ...

[Yurui Liu]

Hi,

I saw the following sentence at the start of a business e-mail. While it is
grammatical, I'd like know if it is natural.

Dear Mr. Smith:

The reason I'm writing this e-mail is to inform you of a change to
our August schedule.

[Tony Cooper]

There is nothing wrong with it, and it is perfectly natural. It is
not the only way to express the thought, but there's nothing wrong
with it.

Please do not respond with several other ways the same information can
be presented and ask if each is natural. You've asked a question and
received an answer.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Yurui Liu]

Tony Cooper於 2019年7月18日星期四 UTC+8上午11時06分52秒寫道：

Thank you for your response. It'll be interesting to see what other
answers come along, though.

[Mark Brader]

Yurui Liu:

Yes.
--
Mark Brader | "You're not entitled to a trial."
m...@vex.net | "Anybody's entitled to a trial, damn you!"
Toronto | "That is absolutely true. But you see, you are NOT anybody..."
-- John Brunner, "The Shockwave Rider"

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:33:27 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
<liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, it is natural.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 11:47:33 PM UTC-4, Yurui Liu wrote:
> Tony Cooper於 2019年7月18日星期四 UTC+8上午11時06分52秒寫道：
> > On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:33:27 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
> > <liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >I saw the following sentence at the start of a business e-mail. While it is
> > >grammatical, I'd like know if it is natural.
> > >
> > >Dear Mr. Smith:

Why would someone address you as "Mr. Smith"? Or are you reading
someone else's mail?

> > >The reason I'm writing this e-mail is to inform you of a change to
> > >our August schedule.
> >
> > There is nothing wrong with it, and it is perfectly natural. It is
> > not the only way to express the thought, but there's nothing wrong
> > with it.
> >
> > Please do not respond with several other ways the same information can
> > be presented and ask if each is natural. You've asked a question and
> > received an answer.
>
> Thank you for your response. It'll be interesting to see what other
> answers come along, though.

There's no need for any other answers. Tony Cooper's was perfect.

[HVS]

On 18 Jul 2019, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote

> On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:33:27 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
><liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I saw the following sentence at the start of a business e-mail. While
>> it is grammatical, I'd like know if it is natural.
>>
>> Dear Mr. Smith:
>>
>> The reason I'm writing this e-mail is to inform you of a change to
>> our August schedule.
>
> Yes, it is natural.

It is, but I'm surprised that no-one has commented that it's "natural-but-
verbose". I can't see any reason for "The reason I'm writing this e-mail
is..."

AFAICT the padding doesn't add anything at all to something like "Please note
that our August schedule has changed".

--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30 yrs) and BrEng (36 yrs),
indiscriminately mixed

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 9:13:46 AM UTC-4, HVS wrote:
> On 18 Jul 2019, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote
>
> > On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:33:27 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
> ><liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I saw the following sentence at the start of a business e-mail. While
> >> it is grammatical, I'd like know if it is natural.
> >>
> >> Dear Mr. Smith:
> >>
> >> The reason I'm writing this e-mail is to inform you of a change to
> >> our August schedule.
> >
> > Yes, it is natural.
>
> It is, but I'm surprised that no-one has commented that it's "natural-but-
> verbose". I can't see any reason for "The reason I'm writing this e-mail
> is..."
>
> AFAICT the padding doesn't add anything at all to something like "Please note
> that our August schedule has changed".

Perfectly ordinary bureaucratic diction. (Except "I'm" for "I am.")

[Yurui Liu]

HVS於 2019年7月18日星期四 UTC+8下午9時13分46秒寫道：

> On 18 Jul 2019, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote
>
> > On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:33:27 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
> ><liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I saw the following sentence at the start of a business e-mail. While
> >> it is grammatical, I'd like know if it is natural.
> >>
> >> Dear Mr. Smith:
> >>
> >> The reason I'm writing this e-mail is to inform you of a change to
> >> our August schedule.
> >
> > Yes, it is natural.
>
> It is, but I'm surprised that no-one has commented that it's "natural-but-
> verbose". I can't see any reason for "The reason I'm writing this e-mail
> is..."

Good point. I was actually expecting someone to bring up the issue of
verbosity. I am wondering whether it is more businesslike and more common
in business correspondence to simply open the e-mail with "I am writing
to inform you of ...."

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 14:13:41 +0100, HVS <off...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 18 Jul 2019, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote
>
>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:33:27 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
>><liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I saw the following sentence at the start of a business e-mail. While
>>> it is grammatical, I'd like know if it is natural.
>>>
>>> Dear Mr. Smith:
>>>
>>> The reason I'm writing this e-mail is to inform you of a change to
>>> our August schedule.
>>
>> Yes, it is natural.
>
>It is, but I'm surprised that no-one has commented that it's "natural-but-
>verbose". I can't see any reason for "The reason I'm writing this e-mail
>is..."
>

I did. I said it is not the only way to express the thought.

Verbosity is natural for some, and it does not obscure the message
unless carried to an extreme.

You have to be careful when responding to Yurui Liu. If you answer
his/her question with any indication that a change in the sentence
(ie: less verbosity) could provide a different answer, we'll see an
endless permutation of "what if?s" suggesting that native speakers
don't agree on their own language.

The question here is "Is the sentence as written natural?"

>AFAICT the padding doesn't add anything at all to something like "Please note
>that our August schedule has changed".
--

[HVS]

On 18 Jul 2019, Yurui Liu wrote

> HVS於 2019年7月18日星期四 UTC+8下午9時13分46秒寫道：
>> On 18 Jul 2019, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote
>>
>>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:33:27 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
>>> <liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I saw the following sentence at the start of a business e-mail. While
>>>> it is grammatical, I'd like know if it is natural.
>>>>
>>>> Dear Mr. Smith:
>>>>
>>>> The reason I'm writing this e-mail is to inform you of a change to
>>>> our August schedule.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is natural.
>>
>> It is, but I'm surprised that no-one has commented that it's "natural-
>> but- verbose". I can't see any reason for "The reason I'm writing this
>> e-mail is..."
>
> Good point. I was actually expecting someone to bring up the issue of
> verbosity. I am wondering whether it is more businesslike and more common
> in business correspondence to simply open the e-mail with "I am writing
> to inform you of ...."

Yes, I think that's more business-like -- but even then it strikes me as
quite a formal/stilted writing style for an email.

[HVS]

On 18 Jul 2019, Tony Cooper wrote

> On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 14:13:41 +0100, HVS <off...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 18 Jul 2019, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote
>>
>>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:33:27 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
>>> <liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I saw the following sentence at the start of a business e-mail. While
>>>> it is grammatical, I'd like know if it is natural.
>>>>
>>>> Dear Mr. Smith:
>>>>
>>>> The reason I'm writing this e-mail is to inform you of a change to
>>>> our August schedule.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is natural.
>>
>> It is, but I'm surprised that no-one has commented that it's
>> "natural-but- verbose". I can't see any reason for "The reason I'm
>> writing this e-mail is..."
>>
> I did. I said it is not the only way to express the thought.
>
> Verbosity is natural for some, and it does not obscure the message
> unless carried to an extreme.
>
> You have to be careful when responding to Yurui Liu. If you answer
> his/her question with any indication that a change in the sentence
> (ie: less verbosity) could provide a different answer, we'll see an
> endless permutation of "what if?s" suggesting that native speakers
> don't agree on their own language.

Oops; sorry -- hadn't clocked that.

> The question here is "Is the sentence as written natural?"

Fair 'nuff. (Am I allowed to answer "Yes, it is -- poor writing is
entirely natural for many people"?)

>> AFAICT the padding doesn't add anything at all to something like
>> "Please note that our August schedule has changed".



--

[HVS]

On 18 Jul 2019, Stefan Ram wrote

> HVS <off...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> writes:

>> It is, but I'm surprised that no-one has commented that it's "natural-
>> but- verbose". I can't see any reason for "The reason I'm writing this
>> e-mail is..."
>

> I deliberately didn't do that. A verbose style is within the
> natural range of expressions. And the question was whether it's
> "natural".

Fair 'nuff.

> If something is okay, then one sometimes just have to accept it
> instead of desperately looking for something to criticize.

Yabbut -- I wasn't "desperately looking" for something to criticise. The
clunkiness of it sort of stumbled off the page and starting screaming at
me.

> And it's only verbose if one reduces language to a means to
> transfer simple logical statements. But the style expresses
> more, it says something about the self-conception of the author
> and his organization and his relationship and attitude to the
> recipient, even if in a way that is not always easy to decipher.
>
> For one example, he could have written,
>
> Dear Mr. Smith:
>
> The following August schedule cancels and replaces all
> previous August schedules.

[Yurui Liu]

Tony Cooper於 2019年7月18日星期四 UTC+8下午9時41分07秒寫道：

> On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 14:13:41 +0100, HVS <off...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >On 18 Jul 2019, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote
> >
> >> On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:33:27 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
> >><liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I saw the following sentence at the start of a business e-mail. While
> >>> it is grammatical, I'd like know if it is natural.
> >>>
> >>> Dear Mr. Smith:
> >>>
> >>> The reason I'm writing this e-mail is to inform you of a change to
> >>> our August schedule.
> >>
> >> Yes, it is natural.
> >
> >It is, but I'm surprised that no-one has commented that it's "natural-but-
> >verbose". I can't see any reason for "The reason I'm writing this e-mail
> >is..."
> >
> I did. I said it is not the only way to express the thought.
>
> Verbosity is natural for some, and it does not obscure the message
> unless carried to an extreme.

Is it natural for people who regularly deal with business correspondence?

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 07:22:22 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
<liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Tony Cooper? 2019?7?18???? UTC+8??9?41?07????

>> On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 14:13:41 +0100, HVS <off...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 18 Jul 2019, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:33:27 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
>> >><liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> I saw the following sentence at the start of a business e-mail. While
>> >>> it is grammatical, I'd like know if it is natural.
>> >>>
>> >>> Dear Mr. Smith:
>> >>>
>> >>> The reason I'm writing this e-mail is to inform you of a change to
>> >>> our August schedule.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, it is natural.
>> >
>> >It is, but I'm surprised that no-one has commented that it's "natural-but-
>> >verbose". I can't see any reason for "The reason I'm writing this e-mail
>> >is..."
>> >
>> I did. I said it is not the only way to express the thought.
>>
>> Verbosity is natural for some, and it does not obscure the message
>> unless carried to an extreme.
>
>Is it natural for people who regularly deal with business correspondence?
>
>>

And he's off and running.

[Jack]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 14:13:41 +0100, HVS <off...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 18 Jul 2019, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote
>
>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:33:27 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
>><liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I saw the following sentence at the start of a business e-mail. While
>>> it is grammatical, I'd like know if it is natural.
>>>
>>> Dear Mr. Smith:
>>>
>>> The reason I'm writing this e-mail is to inform you of a change to
>>> our August schedule.
>>
>> Yes, it is natural.
>
>It is, but I'm surprised that no-one has commented that it's "natural-but-
>verbose". I can't see any reason for "The reason I'm writing this e-mail
>is..."
>
>AFAICT the padding doesn't add anything at all to something like "Please note
>that our August schedule has changed".

It just adds a defensive note.

--
John
The reason I am writing this response is not to disagree with HVS.

[Sam Plusnet]

No-one has explained quite why that schedule should be considered to be
august.

--
Sam Plusnet

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 6:13:46 AM UTC-7, HVS wrote:
> On 18 Jul 2019, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote
>
> > On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:33:27 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
> ><liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I saw the following sentence at the start of a business e-mail. While
> >> it is grammatical, I'd like know if it is natural.
> >>
> >> Dear Mr. Smith:
> >>
> >> The reason I'm writing this e-mail is to inform you of a change to
> >> our August schedule.
> >
> > Yes, it is natural.
>
> It is, but I'm surprised that no-one has commented that it's "natural-but-
> verbose". I can't see any reason for "The reason I'm writing this e-mail
> is..."
>
> AFAICT the padding doesn't add anything at all to something like "Please note
> that our August schedule has changed".

Sure it does. I disagree with Jack that it's a defensive note;
I think it provides a comfortable entrance for a letter (email, etc)
from a business to a customer ... it provides a touch of personal interaction.

That said, I think I mostly see this form in ....
letters from a business to a customer.

/dps

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 12:35:20 PM UTC-7, Sam Plusnet wrote:

> No-one has explained quite why that schedule should be considered to be
> august.

It's the 8th version.

/dps

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <ucOdnT4E-P1oVK3A...@brightview.co.uk>,

It follows the Hail !

[HVS]

Yes, but to me the tone is more suited to a hard-copy letter than an
email (which is the context of the original question).

[bebe...@aol.com]

Le jeudi 18 juillet 2019 16:22:25 UTC+2, Yurui Liu a écrit :
> Tony Cooper於 2019年7月18日星期四 UTC+8下午9時41分07秒寫道：
> > On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 14:13:41 +0100, HVS <off...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On 18 Jul 2019, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote
> > >
> > >> On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:33:27 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
> > >><liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> I saw the following sentence at the start of a business e-mail. While
> > >>> it is grammatical, I'd like know if it is natural.
> > >>>
> > >>> Dear Mr. Smith:
> > >>>
> > >>> The reason I'm writing this e-mail is to inform you of a change to
> > >>> our August schedule.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, it is natural.
> > >
> > >It is, but I'm surprised that no-one has commented that it's "natural-but-
> > >verbose". I can't see any reason for "The reason I'm writing this e-mail
> > >is..."
> > >
> > I did. I said it is not the only way to express the thought.
> >
> > Verbosity is natural for some, and it does not obscure the message
> > unless carried to an extreme.
>
> Is it natural for people who regularly deal with business correspondence?

Not only is it verbose, it's inaccurate, as "reason" expresses causality,
while "to" expresses purpose. The sentence should be reworded as:

"The reason I'm writing this e-mail is that I would like to inform you of
a change to our August schedule" <Even more verbose, but consistent.>

or more simply:

"I'm writing this e-mail to inform you of a change to our August
schedule".

>
> >

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 8:09:47 PM UTC-4, bebe...@aol.com wrote:

> Not only is it verbose, it's inaccurate, as "reason" expresses causality,
> while "to" expresses purpose. The sentence should be reworded as:

Where did you get _that_ from?

[bebe...@aol.com]

Le vendredi 19 juillet 2019 04:34:12 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 8:09:47 PM UTC-4, bebe...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Not only is it verbose, it's inaccurate, as "reason" expresses causality,
> > while "to" expresses purpose. The sentence should be reworded as:
>
> Where did you get _that_ from?

Just common sense: "the purpose is _to_..." and "the reason is _that_"
(or "... because", though that sounds redundant and had better be avoided
IMO).

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 17:09:45 -0700 (PDT), bebe...@aol.com wrote:

>Le jeudi 18 juillet 2019 16:22:25 UTC+2, Yurui Liu a écrit :

>> Tony Cooper? 2019?7?18???? UTC+8??9?41?07????

This is what happens when people do not read a post and provide a
reply that does not deal with the original post.

Yurui Liu's question was very simple: "I'd like to know if it is
natural".

It is. The answer is "yes".

The question was *not* "Can this sentence be improved?".

The sentence is easily understandable. It is not inaccurate and would
not be construed to mean anything other than a notification that there
is a change in the August schedule. It is perfectly natural in that
it is a sentence that would be composed in that way by many native
speakers of English. The distinctions (cause/purpose) would not be
valid in the eyes of 99% of the readers or writers of email.

[Yurui Liu]

Tony Cooper於 2019年7月19日星期五 UTC+8上午11時49分21秒寫道：

Would you call something "perfectly natural" even if it's clunky?

[Yurui Liu]

Tony Cooper於 2019年7月18日星期四 UTC+8下午9時41分07秒寫道：

> On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 14:13:41 +0100, HVS <off...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >On 18 Jul 2019, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote
> >
> >> On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:33:27 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
> >><liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I saw the following sentence at the start of a business e-mail. While
> >>> it is grammatical, I'd like know if it is natural.
> >>>
> >>> Dear Mr. Smith:
> >>>
> >>> The reason I'm writing this e-mail is to inform you of a change to
> >>> our August schedule.
> >>
> >> Yes, it is natural.
> >
> >It is, but I'm surprised that no-one has commented that it's "natural-but-
> >verbose". I can't see any reason for "The reason I'm writing this e-mail
> >is..."
> >
> I did. I said it is not the only way to express the thought.

Saying that the thought can be expressed in more than one way is
quite different from acknowledging that tbe sentence in question
is verbose. Maybe you had that *in mind* while composing a previous post,
but the reasoning you have presented here is like an inference from "Tony
ate carbohydrates for dinner" to "Tony ate a bowl of rice for dinner."

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 23:01:27 +0100, HVS <use...@REMOVE-THISwhhvs.co.uk>
wrote:

Increasingly the sort of (semi-)formal communication that would have
been sent as a hard-copy letter is being sent by email.

[Richard Yates]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 21:45:05 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
<liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Tony Cooper? 2019?7?19???? UTC+8??11?49?21????

Yes. "Perfectly natural" writing or speech from a native speaker
occurs without editorial attention or revision and so is in fact more
likely to be clunky than if it were carefully composed and polished.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 21:45:05 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
<liuyur...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> This is what happens when people do not read a post and provide a
>> reply that does not deal with the original post.
>>
>> Yurui Liu's question was very simple: "I'd like to know if it is
>> natural".
>>
>> It is. The answer is "yes".
>>
>> The question was *not* "Can this sentence be improved?".
>>
>> The sentence is easily understandable. It is not inaccurate and would
>> not be construed to mean anything other than a notification that there
>> is a change in the August schedule. It is perfectly natural in that
>> it is a sentence that would be composed in that way by many native
>> speakers of English.
>
>Would you call something "perfectly natural" even if it's clunky?
>

In the context of email, "natural" - in my view - is the way an
ordinary person could construct a sentence, and there is no standard
way of writing expected by the ordinary person. Ordinary people's
writing could be anything from excessively terse to flowery or
excessively formal. And, that includes "clunky".

Unless the writing appears to be contrived, it can be considered to be
"natural".

If you have some definition of "natural" in mind that differs with
this, you need to state it.

[John Varela]

Except that it doesn't include the words "in order to serve you
better".

--
John Varela

[Sam Plusnet]

That phrase is saved for occasions when they're cutting off your life
support or demolishing your home.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Jerry Friedman]

Please. It's "to better serve you".

--
Jerry Friedman

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

"To serve mankind" was the recipe book, wasn't it?


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

[Cheryl]

or no longer sell your favourite item, change their hours, change their
delivery options,

--
Cheryl

[Peter Moylan]

Monsieur le président
Je vous écris une lettre
Que vous lirez peut-être
Si vous avez le temps.

Je viens de recevoir
Mes papiers militaires
Pour aller à la guerre
Avant mercredi soir.

(Further verses on request. Peter, Paul, and Mary did a reasonable
version of this one.)

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Peter Moylan]

"To Serve Man", IIRC.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 13:34:47 GMT, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 20/07/19 17:07, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 00:38:25 GMT, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19-Jul-19 21:48, John Varela wrote:
>
>>>> Except that it doesn't include the words "in order to serve you
>>>> better".
>>>>
>>> That phrase is saved for occasions when they're cutting off your life
>>> support or demolishing your home.
>>>
>> "To serve mankind" was the recipe book, wasn't it?
>
> "To Serve Man", IIRC.
>

Thanks.