"Dogs must be kept on leads" This suggests to me that each dogs must wear numerous leads.However "Dogs must be kept on a lead" This suggests all the dogs in the park must share the same lead! I know it's a daft question but I see it everyday and it drives me mad.How should it read to be correct.
2007-01-27 04:50:18 · 10 answers · asked by Cream tea 4 in Education & Reference ➔ Other - Education
Lighten up Jay and be grateful you can see otherwise you may have to rely on a "bloody dog"
2007-01-27 05:29:08 · update #1
Great question!
It drives me mad to read something by a press reporter who cannot string a column together without making a mockery of the English language.
I read the Telegraph and the Sun. The reports from their writers is often grammatically abysmal.
I was taught at school that it was 'an hotel' - not ' A hotel' but nobody seems to care nowadays.
But, at the end of the day - does it really matter? As long as the meaning comes across.
I am afraid, sunshine, that you - like me - are a part of a dying breed.
2007-01-27 05:10:35 · answer #1 · answered by Bunts 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dogs must be kept on leads is right because there are lots of dogs and therefore have lots of leads
If you were referring to one dog then that must be kept on a lead
2007-01-27 04:56:16 · answer #2 · answered by toon_tigger 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Each and every dog must be kept on his or her own individual, personal lead, with no sharing or swapping of leads permitted. Thank you.
(I work for a sign manufacturer and we charge by the letter....profits haven't been too good recently)
2007-01-27 04:59:17 · answer #3 · answered by Dunceboy 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Dogs must be kept on leads.
2007-01-27 04:53:20 · answer #4 · answered by mcfifi 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just because something is correct it does not mean that it is unambiguous. Often common sense tells you what is meant. It seems to me amazing that our language has so few idiocies like that. It's not as if we designed it with thought . . . . . it just grew, evolved. On the whole doesn't it do well!
If we didn't use common sense to sort out alternatives language would have to be so precise and have so many rules . I guess you have a trade off between a completely precise language and one that has ambiguities and has to be interpreted.
And maybe thasshow we can write poems. So there's another question . . . If language could only have one interpretation could we still write poetry? Issa thought.
2007-01-27 05:50:26 · answer #5 · answered by Richard T 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How about "All dogs must be kept on their lead"
I think that gets rid of the implication that it is the same lead.
2007-01-27 04:55:51 · answer #6 · answered by queenbee 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Dogs must be kept on leads is correct. I do agree with you that it could be worded in another way, to avoid confusion. i.e. Please keep your dog on a lead. Councils should remember that politeness, goes a long way.
2007-01-27 05:04:10 · answer #7 · answered by Social Science Lady 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It does sound slightly misleading when you study it but is actually correct as both 'dogs' and 'leads' are plural.
2007-01-27 05:00:36 · answer #8 · answered by nettyone2003 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
make sure your dog is on a lead - put a lead on your dirty dog - put a dirty lead on your bloody dog.
2007-01-27 04:57:39 · answer #9 · answered by jay 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
use wren and martin grammar book
2007-01-27 05:15:12 · answer #10 · answered by AMAN SWEET B 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋