Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Grammar/etiquette question for you.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU
 
grace0418 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 04:41 PM
Original message
Grammar/etiquette question for you.
Edited on Mon Jul-09-07 04:46 PM by grace0418
Someone in my condo building just put her unit on the market and sent out an email to all the owners asking about the rules on pets. She couldn't remember if there was a weight limit and asked if anyone else knew. I didn't have the condo rules with me but replied the following to the best of my knowledge because she needed an answer right away (I have changed the names ala Ann Landers to protect identities):


Hi Lisa
I feel like we toyed around with setting a weight limit because one of the renters in Jim's and Barb's unit had two large dobermans that really tore up the hallways. Maybe we decided to stipulate that dogs need to be taken outside through the back door. It's been awhile, so I don't remember clearly...


Just for a little background, we have twelve units in our building and only two are being rented out. One couple who rents out their place ("Jim and Barb") is rather notorious for not communicating, or paying their dues, or screening their tenants, or generally caring about the building at all. It seems to be just a cash cow to them, much to the chagrin of everyone else who lives there. Their current tenants are lovely, but in the past there have been some bad ones, including the tenants who allowed their cute but untrained dobermans to destroy the paint job and carpet in the hallway leading to the front door.

Anyway, a little while later, another owner in the building (who happens to have the same first name as "Barb") sent this reply:


Please know that I do not have renters or a doberman dog, just a cat- Betty. At one time two dobermans lived in the xxx unit - rental and caused havoc but that was a while back.


I quickly sent a reply to apologize for the confusion but honestly I don't know how I should've worded differently. Is the proper grammer not "Jim's and Barb's unit"? What would be the correct way to write it (assuming you don't remember their last name, which I don't)? Doesn't the context of the phrase "... one of the renters in Jim's and Barb's unit.." clearly suggest that I am speaking about one condo unit owned by a couple?

I have to admit that I was a bit annoyed that "Barb" didn't reply and say "sorry, I misunderstood" or "thanks for clearing that up, I must have read that wrong." I also thought it was odd that she didn't remember that another owner in our building had the same name as her. I think I would remember if there was another Grace in the building. And if someone referred to "Grace" in an email and I didn't understand the reference, I would probably pause and ask myself if they were referring to the other Grace before sending off a snippy response.

Here's the etiquette problem now. I am hosting the next condo board meeting and "Barb" is coming ("Jim and Barb" never come to these things, they can't be bothered). Should I apologize again and give her the opportunity to say "Oh, that's okay, sorry I misunderstood" or do I not bring it up at all?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
skygazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. I would not mention it personally
You already apologised and explained yourself. However, I would refrain from using people's names in an email like that in the first place. It wasn't really relevant to the situation - it didn't matter which unit the dogs were in, in other words.

A better way to have worded it was to say, "...I feel like we toyed around with setting a weight limit because one of the people who once rented a unit here had two large dobermans that really tore up the hallways."

I just think it's never a good idea to single someone out by name if you don't have to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grace0418 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Well, I wanted to differentiate from the other (more responsible) owner
who rents out his unit and reads our group email. "Jim and Barb" are not on our group email and are never in contact with anyone. The other landlord/owner is very sensitive about his tenants causing any problems and if I wrote "...I feel like we toyed around with setting a weight limit because one of the people who once rented a unit here had two large dobermans that really tore up the hallways" he would've immediately written back and asked "Who caused problems? One of my tenants? Please tell me because I will immediately charge them for repairs..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Considering what you just wrote here, and what you wrote in the OP
Edited on Mon Jul-09-07 05:17 PM by Rabrrrrrr
(to wit: that you really didn't know the answer), your best bet would have been not to say anything at all.

No offense, but for someone looking for a specific answer, getting vague memories and unspecific psuedo-thoughts isn't helpful.

But, the damage is done, and I think you did admirably in getting out of it.

As to the offended Barb, all you can do is say "I didn't mean you, I meant Jim and Barb", and if she can't deal with that, then she has maturity problems and you might as well write her off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grace0418 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Actually, the original poster thanked me because I was the only one who answered
her question at all. The reason I answered was because it was the second time she asked and no one else stepped up with any response. And I confirmed what she remembered, too. So it did actually help her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Ah, in that case it's not so bad, then.
If they can't any information, then resort to Plan B - memory and vagueness. At least it's a start!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grace0418 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. LOL! Her best bet would've been to read the condo rules where we listed all that out.
But she, like me, probably can't remember the "safe place" she filed those rules. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. I agree with skygazer that not using names is better (unit # or other designation would be best.)
However, what you wrote is unambiguous because unit is singular, unless the other Barb also lives with a Jim.

I would drop the issue. You've already apologized to the whole group via email.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grace0418 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. I will drop the issue. I guess I was just crabby because she jumped to conclusions but didn't
bother to say "oops, sorry".

Our building is weird, we only have twelve units but we have four different addresses and nobody refers to the units in any way except "so-and-so's unit." If I said xxxx W. xxx Unit 2, people would be even more confused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KitchenWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
7. I would not mention it
Let her bring it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grace0418 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Yeah, you're right.
I'm hoping she'll at least acknowledge that she jumped to conclusions but I guess I'll just assume she's embarrassed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 05:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC