 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / December 2008How to correct *if a fire happens*?
Hi, ------------- __If a fire happens__, you will be responsible for leading all the employees in your department through the emergency exits on the first floor. ------------- The wording between the underscores is marked to be wrong. I think that the indefinite article "a" before "fire" is odd, and that the correction would be "in case of fire." Am I right? But how to put it right if I wanted to keep the "if"? "If fire happened, you will..." The tense mix-up reads odd to me. :-| "If fire happens, you will ..." Is this okay? Regards Tacia > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The wording between the underscores is marked to be wrong. > I think that the indefinite article "a" before "fire" is odd, No, the article is not wrong. 'Fire' could be treated as a singular or a mass noun in a context such as this. > and that > the correction would be "in case of fire." Am I right? That is possible, but slightly ambiguous. It sounds as if you might lead all the staff out if there's just a slight possibility of a fire breaking out, not after you know there is one. > But how to put it right if I wanted to keep the "if"? > > "If fire happened, you will..." > The tense mix-up reads odd to me. :-| Yes, that is wrong. > "If fire happens, you will ..." > Is this okay? Yes. It is grammatical and perfectly understandable, so it can't be called wrong (with or without the article). However there are many possible ways to phrase it, and some of them sound a little more idiomatic: Should there be a fire, ... In the event of fire, ... If there is a fire, ... The last is probably the simplest and therefore best.  SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au >> Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >The last is probably the simplest and therefore best. In the multi-storey carpark of a local shopping mall, the lifts/elevators are all marked "Do not use in case of fire". Surprisingly, everyone still wants to use them! SignatureIan > In the multi-storey carpark of a local shopping mall, the > lifts/elevators are all marked "Do not use in case of fire". > Surprisingly, everyone still wants to use them! That, to me, is a weird interpretation of "in case of". A British one, I presume. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >> In the multi-storey carpark of a local shopping mall, the >> lifts/elevators are all marked "Do not use in case of fire". >> Surprisingly, everyone still wants to use them! > > That, to me, is a weird interpretation of "in case of". A British one, > I presume. Can't stop now (Wife's birthday - we're off to the best Indian restaurant we've ever discovered), but we've discussed this before and concluded, I think, that it's a BrE form. SignatureDavid >>> In the multi-storey carpark of a local shopping mall, the >>> lifts/elevators are all marked "Do not use in case of fire". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > restaurant we've ever discovered), but we've discussed this before and > concluded, I think, that it's a BrE form. That's what I was alluding to, without being too firm about it. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >> In the multi-storey carpark of a local shopping mall, the >> lifts/elevators are all marked "Do not use in case of fire". >> Surprisingly, everyone still wants to use them! > >That, to me, is a weird interpretation of "in case of". A British one, I >presume. It is certainly used in BrE as the URLs I cited show, but there is *some* usage in North America: http://www.labsafety.com/store/item/119890A/ In Case of Fire Do Not Use Elevators Sign from: Lab Safety Supply, Inc. PO Box 1368, Janesville WI USA 53547-1368 Similar signs at: http://www.sssco.com/IC_Fire-1_dn-W-AL.shtml from: Special Signs & Symbols Company, 56 South Main Street, Chadwick, IL 61014 SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>> In the multi-storey carpark of a local shopping mall, the >>> lifts/elevators are all marked "Do not use in case of fire". [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > from: Special Signs & Symbols Company, 56 South Main Street, > Chadwick, IL 61014 There's been a misunderstanding, caused by my not-so-clear comment. The signs are just fine, meaning that in the event of fire people should not use the elevators. The weird part I meant to comment on was the interpretation that the use of elevators might cause a fire. I do understand that, at least in some parts of the UK, there exists such an interpretation. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>>> In the multi-storey carpark of a local shopping mall, the >>>> lifts/elevators are all marked "Do not use in case of fire". [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >that the use of elevators might cause a fire. I do understand that, at >least in some parts of the UK, there exists such an interpretation. Right, I'm with you now. The 'weird interpretation of "in case of" ' is a deliberate misinterpretation of the wording of the sign, similar to the alternative interpretation of the British road warning sign "Slow plant crossing". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>> In the multi-storey carpark of a local shopping mall, the >>>> lifts/elevators are all marked "Do not use in case of fire". [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >understand that, at least in some parts of the UK, there exists such an >interpretation. Even in BrE, the wording is normally "In case of fire do not use". If you're really lucky, you might actually get a comma after fire! However, I can't recall seeing the 'about-face' wording. But not to worry. I'm sure that even the thickest Briton know what the sign really means. SignatureIan >> In the multi-storey carpark of a local shopping mall, the >> lifts/elevators are all marked "Do not use in case of fire". >> Surprisingly, everyone still wants to use them! > > That, to me, is a weird interpretation of "in case of". A British > one, I presume. More to the point, though, is that the question came from a non-native speaker and so the instructions are presumably intended for non-native speakers. "In case of" could be a confusing idiom (What case? The one where it says to break the glass?), so might be better avoided. Similarly it might be better not to use a subjunctive construction. That's why I think "if there is a fire" is the least potentially confusing. Emergency instructions have to be as plain as possible, especially for people with little English. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au >>> In the multi-storey carpark of a local shopping mall, the >>> lifts/elevators are all marked "Do not use in case of fire". [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > confusing. Emergency instructions have to be as plain as possible, > especially for people with little English. "If fire, go away". SignatureRob Bannister [...] >> Emergency instructions have to be as plain as possible, >> especially for people with little English. > > "If fire, go away". ----------------- | | | Fire? RUN!!! | | | ----------------- ~~~ Reinhold [Rey] Aman ~~~ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > | | > ----------------- Excerpt from the screenplay for the unrealized _Frankensteins's Monster Meets the Teletubbies_ project: MONSTER Fire Bad!!! TUBBIES Run away! Run away! SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > | | > ----------------- There's a fairly recent style of sign for emergency exits that has come in for some criticism because it looks like it suggests running. Most instructions say to walk, not run. http://www.designawards.com.au/images/INDUSTRY/Slide%20Connect%20G2%20-%20Exit%2 0Sign.jpg SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au >> In the multi-storey carpark of a local shopping mall, the >> lifts/elevators are all marked "Do not use in case of fire". >> Surprisingly, everyone still wants to use them! > > That, to me, is a weird interpretation of "in case of". A British one, I > presume. It doesn't alter the fact that "Do not use in case of fire" is a daft thing to put on a sign, given that there are plenty of other phrases that could be used that aren't ambiguous. Adrian >>> In the multi-storey carpark of a local shopping mall, the >>> lifts/elevators are all marked "Do not use in case of fire". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >to put on a sign, given that there are plenty of other phrases that could be >used that aren't ambiguous. It is possible that the meaning of "in case of" on the sign has been overtaken by a different meaning of "in case of". OED distinguishes between "in case" and "in case of" OED: case, n.1 II. Phrases. {dag}10. in case: a. in the event, in fact (cf. 3). (See also 5, 5b, for a different sense.) b. as conjunction (with sentence): in the event or contingency that, if it should prove or happen that, if. in case, esp. in just in case, orig. with aposiopesis, in case {emem}, to indicate an unspecified apprehension of accident. c. lest, in provision against the case that. 1588 A. KING Canisius' Catech. 152 Thou sall pay him the price of his labour..incaice he cry to God agains the. Mod. Take your umbrella, in case it should rain. d. in case of: in the event of. 1736 BUTLER Anal. I. iii. 70 Obnoxious to it [punishment] in case of a discovery. 1745 P. THOMAS Jrnl. Anson's Voy. 65 All the Ships had Orders..in case of not meeting there, to make the best of their way to Macao. 1832 W. IRVING Alhambra I. 90 More apt to trust to the length of his legs than the strength of his arms, in case of attack. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>> In the multi-storey carpark of a local shopping mall, the >>> lifts/elevators are all marked "Do not use in case of fire". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > thing to put on a sign, given that there are plenty of other phrases > that could be used that aren't ambiguous. While it is not a common way to word the caution, there is nothing ambiguous about it to a Leftpondian. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >> Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >all the staff out if there's just a slight possibility of a fire >breaking out, not after you know there is one. "In case of fire" seems to be standard wording in both the US and the UK. It means "In the event of fire". See : <http://www.safetymedia.com/searchresult.aspx?CategoryID=45> <http://www.directa.co.uk/site/scripts/product_browse.php?product_id=4310> <http://www.health-safety-signs.uk.com/cgi/products.pl?sign=In%20case%20of%20fire> <http://www.euroffice.co.uk/i/bc4/In-Case-Of-Fire-Break-Glass-Self-Adhesive-Sign- Ref-SP074SAV> However, what to me is a new style of sign uses "Fire Action": <http://www.tcob.co.uk/fireaction.htm> >> But how to put it right if I wanted to keep the "if"? >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >The last is probably the simplest and therefore best. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I think that the indefinite article "a" before "fire" is odd, and that > the correction would be "in case of fire." Am I right? There is nothing wrong with the 'a'. The verb "happens" is what is odd to my ear. Fires most commonly "break out". "if a fire breaks out". "in case of fire" is common and idiomatic. > But how to put it right if I wanted to keep the "if"? "if there is a fire" or "if fire breaks out". > "If fire happens, you will ..." > Is this okay? The tenses are fine. "happens" is odd. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "If fire happens, you will ..." > Is this okay? Should (a) fire break out... [BrE] >> Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Should (a) fire break out... [BrE] This is an example of wording being shortened by the omission of non-essential words. This is done in signs and headlines. In this case the fuller wording would be "In the case of a fire". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) "Tacia": > ------------- > __If a fire happens__, you will be responsible for leading all the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I think that the indefinite article "a" before "fire" is odd, and that > the correction would be "in case of fire." Am I right? The existing version is correct, but "in case of fire" is the usual expression with this meaning. "Fire" can be either a count noun or a mass noun. ("In case of a fire" would also be possible, but it is not the usual expression.) > But how to put it right if I wanted to keep the "if"? It's correct as it is. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto "Remember the Golgafrinchans" msb@vex.net -- Pete Granger My text in this article is in the public domain. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.