Discussion:
employed two welders
(too old to reply)
Yurui Liu
2021-01-13 02:43:13 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following sentence.
If the welders are still employees at the factory, we can still use "employed"
in that sentence?

The factory employed two new welders yesterday.

I'd appreciate your help.
Tony Cooper
2021-01-13 04:00:40 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:43:13 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following sentence.
If the welders are still employees at the factory, we can still use "employed"
in that sentence?
The factory employed two new welders yesterday.
I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Marius Hancu
2021-01-13 04:15:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:43:13 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following sentence.
If the welders are still employees at the factory, we can still use "employed"
in that sentence?
The factory employed two new welders yesterday.
I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
Love this term:-)

--
Marius Hancu
Peter Moylan
2021-01-13 04:35:20 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 11:00:44 PM UTC-5, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:43:13 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following
sentence. If the welders are still employees at the factory, we
can still use "employed" in that sentence?
The factory employed two new welders yesterday.
I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
Love this term:-)
Some of us say and write it as "box standard", but I think the two
variants are starting to develop slightly different meanings.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-13 15:01:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Marius Hancu
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:43:13 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following
sentence. If the welders are still employees at the factory, we
can still use "employed" in that sentence?
The factory employed two new welders yesterday.
I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
Love this term:-)
Some of us say and write it as "box standard", but I think the two
variants are starting to develop slightly different meanings.
"Bog standard" is Brit (thus not surprising from TC); is "box standard"
-- i.e. with final devoicing -- maybe Australian?

"Hired" would be less bureaucratic than "employed."
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2021-01-13 17:08:07 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 07:01:23 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Marius Hancu
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:43:13 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following
sentence. If the welders are still employees at the factory, we
can still use "employed" in that sentence?
The factory employed two new welders yesterday.
I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
Love this term:-)
Some of us say and write it as "box standard", but I think the two
variants are starting to develop slightly different meanings.
"Bog standard" is Brit (thus not surprising from TC); is "box standard"
-- i.e. with final devoicing -- maybe Australian?
The OED entries for box-standard and bog-standard:

box-standard, n. and adj.

Etymology: < box n.2 + standard n. Compare later bog-standard adj.
The sense in which box can be understood in the phrase varies. In
the earlier noun, box reflects the hollow framework: hollow tubing
is the most economical (and hence most common) material with which
to build a strong frame or mounting. In the adjective, box is often
understood as a reference to packaging, though in quot. 1983 at
sense B., the sense is clearly of the box as a shape or frame.

Given the strong anecdotal evidence of an early association with
motorcycles and cars (see note s.v. bog-standard adj.), it is
possible the technical sense of the noun was originally present in
the adjective, but that box standard came later to be interpreted
(or rationalized) as meaning ‘a standard engine frame, etc., without
modifications, such as one might expect straight from the
manufacturer's box’, in turn giving rise to the present sense.

†A. n.
A frame or standard of hollow tubing forming the main framework of
a machine, engine, etc. Obsolete.
1884...

B. adj.
colloquial (chiefly British). In motoring, engineering, and other
technical contexts: in standard manufactured form, unmodified;
(hence) basic, unexceptional.Perhaps used originally of motorcycles
and cars: see notes in etymology and bog-standard adj.

1983 Computerworld 21 Feb. (In Depth Suppl.) 2/3 We cannot
foresee a day when a computer becomes just a standard box. There
will be box-standard machines along the road, but we do not simply
have to make those. There will always be something fresh waiting
to be done.
....

bog-standard, adj.

Etymology: Origin uncertain; perhaps an alteration of box standard
n. (although this is first attested later), after bog n.4
Differing theories of the origin of bog-standard have been proposed,
but none proven. An immediate association with bog n.1 {wet ground}
seems unlikely on semantic grounds. The most commonly held view is
that the transition from box to bog resulted from a mishearing or
misunderstanding of box standard n.

Others have suggested a derivation < bog-wheel, former Cambridge
slang for a bicycle, though ultimately also related to bog n.4: see
P. Beale Conc. Dict. Slang (1989) 47/2, 48/1.

slang (depreciative, chiefly British).

Ordinary, basic, standard; without extra features or modification;
unexceptional or uninspired. Cf. box standard n.
1962 Motor Sport Apr. 283/1 (advt.) Bog standard Sprite, 1959,
two owners.
1968 Hot Car Oct. 35/1 The brakes are bog-standard—anyway Barry
says he only uses them in the paddock!
1972 Daily Mirror 15 May 21/1 She was ‘bog standard’—meaning
straight from the production line without modifications.
....
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-13 19:42:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 07:01:23 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Marius Hancu
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:43:13 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following
sentence. If the welders are still employees at the factory, we
can still use "employed" in that sentence?
The factory employed two new welders yesterday.
I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
Love this term:-)
Some of us say and write it as "box standard", but I think the two
variants are starting to develop slightly different meanings.
"Bog standard" is Brit (thus not surprising from TC); is "box standard"
-- i.e. with final devoicing -- maybe Australian?
box-standard, n. and adj.
Etymology: < box n.2 + standard n. Compare later bog-standard adj.
But the earliest quoted example is 20 years later than the earliest
for "bog-standard"!
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The sense in which box can be understood in the phrase varies. In
the earlier noun, box reflects the hollow framework: hollow tubing
is the most economical (and hence most common) material with which
to build a strong frame or mounting. In the adjective, box is often
understood as a reference to packaging, though in quot. 1983 at
sense B., the sense is clearly of the box as a shape or frame.
Given the strong anecdotal evidence of an early association with
motorcycles and cars (see note s.v. bog-standard adj.), it is
possible the technical sense of the noun was originally present in
the adjective, but that box standard came later to be interpreted
(or rationalized) as meaning ‘a standard engine frame, etc., without
modifications, such as one might expect straight from the
manufacturer's box’, in turn giving rise to the present sense.
†A. n.
A frame or standard of hollow tubing forming the main framework of
a machine, engine, etc. Obsolete.
1884...
B. adj.
colloquial (chiefly British). In motoring, engineering, and other
technical contexts: in standard manufactured form, unmodified;
(hence) basic, unexceptional.Perhaps used originally of motorcycles
and cars: see notes in etymology and bog-standard adj.
1983 Computerworld 21 Feb. (In Depth Suppl.) 2/3 We cannot
foresee a day when a computer becomes just a standard box. There
will be box-standard machines along the road, but we do not simply
have to make those. There will always be something fresh waiting
to be done.
....
bog-standard, adj.
Etymology: Origin uncertain; perhaps an alteration of box standard
n. (although this is first attested later), after bog n.4
Differing theories of the origin of bog-standard have been proposed,
but none proven. An immediate association with bog n.1 {wet ground}
seems unlikely on semantic grounds. The most commonly held view is
that the transition from box to bog resulted from a mishearing or
misunderstanding of box standard n.
Others have suggested a derivation < bog-wheel, former Cambridge
slang for a bicycle, though ultimately also related to bog n.4: see
P. Beale Conc. Dict. Slang (1989) 47/2, 48/1.
slang (depreciative, chiefly British).
Ordinary, basic, standard; without extra features or modification;
unexceptional or uninspired. Cf. box standard n.
1962 Motor Sport Apr. 283/1 (advt.) Bog standard Sprite, 1959,
two owners.
1968 Hot Car Oct. 35/1 The brakes are bog-standard—anyway Barry
says he only uses them in the paddock!
1972 Daily Mirror 15 May 21/1 She was ‘bog standard’—meaning
straight from the production line without modifications.
Peter Moylan
2021-01-14 01:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Marius Hancu
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:43:13 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following
sentence. If the welders are still employees at the factory, we
can still use "employed" in that sentence?
The factory employed two new welders yesterday.
I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
Love this term:-)
Some of us say and write it as "box standard", but I think the two
variants are starting to develop slightly different meanings.
"Bog standard" is Brit (thus not surprising from TC); is "box standard"
-- i.e. with final devoicing -- maybe Australian?
Both terms are originally BrE, but both are understood and used in AusE.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"Hired" would be less bureaucratic than "employed."
This might be regional. In Australia "employed" is the more common
choice. "Hired" is used, but has a feeling of being American.

The primary meaning of "hired" here is "rented", so it's most
appropriate for jobs with poor job security.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
Sam Plusnet
2021-01-14 01:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Marius Hancu
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:43:13 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following
sentence. If the welders are still employees at the factory, we
can still use "employed" in that sentence?
The factory employed two new welders yesterday.
I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
Love this term:-)
Some of us say and write it as "box standard", but I think the two
variants are starting to develop slightly different meanings.
"Bog standard" is Brit (thus not surprising from TC); is "box standard"
-- i.e. with final devoicing -- maybe Australian?
Both terms are originally BrE, but both are understood and used in AusE.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"Hired" would be less bureaucratic than "employed."
This might be regional. In Australia "employed" is the more common
choice. "Hired" is used, but has a feeling of being American.
The primary meaning of "hired" here is "rented", so it's most
appropriate for jobs with poor job security.
If you insert "The UK" instead of "Australia" in the above, that states
my view of those two choices.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Yurui Liu
2021-01-14 06:41:37 UTC
Permalink
Sam Plusnet 在 2021年1月14日 星期四上午9:53:52 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道:
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Marius Hancu
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:43:13 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following
sentence. If the welders are still employees at the factory, we
can still use "employed" in that sentence?
The factory employed two new welders yesterday.
I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
Love this term:-)
Some of us say and write it as "box standard", but I think the two
variants are starting to develop slightly different meanings.
"Bog standard" is Brit (thus not surprising from TC); is "box standard"
-- i.e. with final devoicing -- maybe Australian?
Both terms are originally BrE, but both are understood and used in AusE.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"Hired" would be less bureaucratic than "employed."
This might be regional. In Australia "employed" is the more common
choice. "Hired" is used, but has a feeling of being American.
The primary meaning of "hired" here is "rented", so it's most
appropriate for jobs with poor job security.
If you insert "The UK" instead of "Australia" in the above, that states
my view of those two choices.
I'm curious about how Brits perceive the following sentence:

The company employs a total of 30 welders, including the two new
ones it employed last Friday.

The example is meant to bring out the two job-related senses of
"employ" (i.e., state vs. action).
Post by Sam Plusnet
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
b***@shaw.ca
2021-01-14 06:47:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Sam Plusnet 在 2021年1月14日 星期四上午9:53:52 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道:
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Marius Hancu
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:43:13 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following
sentence. If the welders are still employees at the factory, we
can still use "employed" in that sentence?
The factory employed two new welders yesterday.
I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
Love this term:-)
Some of us say and write it as "box standard", but I think the two
variants are starting to develop slightly different meanings.
"Bog standard" is Brit (thus not surprising from TC); is "box standard"
-- i.e. with final devoicing -- maybe Australian?
Both terms are originally BrE, but both are understood and used in AusE.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"Hired" would be less bureaucratic than "employed."
This might be regional. In Australia "employed" is the more common
choice. "Hired" is used, but has a feeling of being American.
The primary meaning of "hired" here is "rented", so it's most
appropriate for jobs with poor job security.
If you insert "The UK" instead of "Australia" in the above, that states
my view of those two choices.
The company employs a total of 30 welders, including the two new
ones it employed last Friday.
The example is meant to bring out the two job-related senses of
"employ" (i.e., state vs. action).
That's not how I use "employed". To employ is an ongoing state, exclusively,
in my usage. For agreeing to put someone on the payroll, I use "hired".
Yurui Liu
2021-01-14 06:56:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Yurui Liu
Sam Plusnet 在 2021年1月14日 星期四上午9:53:52 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道:
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Marius Hancu
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:43:13 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following
sentence. If the welders are still employees at the factory, we
can still use "employed" in that sentence?
The factory employed two new welders yesterday.
I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
Love this term:-)
Some of us say and write it as "box standard", but I think the two
variants are starting to develop slightly different meanings.
"Bog standard" is Brit (thus not surprising from TC); is "box standard"
-- i.e. with final devoicing -- maybe Australian?
Both terms are originally BrE, but both are understood and used in AusE.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"Hired" would be less bureaucratic than "employed."
This might be regional. In Australia "employed" is the more common
choice. "Hired" is used, but has a feeling of being American.
The primary meaning of "hired" here is "rented", so it's most
appropriate for jobs with poor job security.
If you insert "The UK" instead of "Australia" in the above, that states
my view of those two choices.
The company employs a total of 30 welders, including the two new
ones it employed last Friday.
The example is meant to bring out the two job-related senses of
"employ" (i.e., state vs. action).
That's not how I use "employed". To employ is an ongoing state, exclusively,
in my usage. For agreeing to put someone on the payroll, I use "hired".
Would you have used "hired" in the following example from Fortune Magazine?

The U.S. solar industry employed 260,077 workers last year, a nearly 25% increase in
the number of jobs from 2015. That jump was largely driven by a massive increase in
solar panel installations, according to a report released Tuesday by the non-profit solar
advocacy group The Solar Foundation.
b***@shaw.ca
2021-01-14 07:13:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Yurui Liu
Sam Plusnet 在 2021年1月14日 星期四上午9:53:52 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道:
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Marius Hancu
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:43:13 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following
sentence. If the welders are still employees at the factory, we
can still use "employed" in that sentence?
The factory employed two new welders yesterday.
I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
Love this term:-)
Some of us say and write it as "box standard", but I think the two
variants are starting to develop slightly different meanings.
"Bog standard" is Brit (thus not surprising from TC); is "box standard"
-- i.e. with final devoicing -- maybe Australian?
Both terms are originally BrE, but both are understood and used in AusE.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"Hired" would be less bureaucratic than "employed."
This might be regional. In Australia "employed" is the more common
choice. "Hired" is used, but has a feeling of being American.
The primary meaning of "hired" here is "rented", so it's most
appropriate for jobs with poor job security.
If you insert "The UK" instead of "Australia" in the above, that states
my view of those two choices.
The company employs a total of 30 welders, including the two new
ones it employed last Friday.
The example is meant to bring out the two job-related senses of
"employ" (i.e., state vs. action).
That's not how I use "employed". To employ is an ongoing state, exclusively,
in my usage. For agreeing to put someone on the payroll, I use "hired".
Would you have used "hired" in the following example from Fortune Magazine?
The U.S. solar industry employed 260,077 workers last year, a nearly 25% increase in
the number of jobs from 2015. That jump was largely driven by a massive increase in
solar panel installations, according to a report released Tuesday by the non-profit solar
advocacy group The Solar Foundation.
No, I would not. "Employed" in that paragraph indicates that was the size of the
solar energy's work force. Using employed to mean "hired" in that context would mean
the U.S. solar industry hired -- i.e. began to employ -- more than 260,000 workers
last year, which is not the case.

bill
Janet
2021-01-14 12:18:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Marius Hancu
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:43:13 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following
sentence. If the welders are still employees at the factory, we
can still use "employed" in that sentence?
The factory employed two new welders yesterday.
I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
Love this term:-)
Some of us say and write it as "box standard", but I think the two
variants are starting to develop slightly different meanings.
"Bog standard" is Brit (thus not surprising from TC); is "box standard"
-- i.e. with final devoicing -- maybe Australian?
Both terms are originally BrE, but both are understood and used in AusE.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"Hired" would be less bureaucratic than "employed."
This might be regional. In Australia "employed" is the more common
choice. "Hired" is used, but has a feeling of being American.
The primary meaning of "hired" here is "rented", so it's most
appropriate for jobs with poor job security.
If you insert "The UK" instead of "Australia" in the above, that states
my view of those two choices.
The company employs a total of 30 welders, including the two new
ones it employed last Friday.
That would be normal usage here
Post by Yurui Liu
The example is meant to bring out the two job-related senses of
"employ" (i.e., state vs. action).
Sam is a Brit. We use employ for both.

We use hire to mean renting an object for temporary use, " hire a
van."

I employ a window cleaner, I don't hire him.

Janet
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-13 10:06:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marius Hancu
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:43:13 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following
sentence. If the welders are still employees at the factory, we can
still use "employed" in that sentence?
The factory employed two new welders yesterday.
I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
Love this term:-)
Don't get bogged down in it,

Jan
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-01-13 16:48:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Marius Hancu
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:43:13 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following
sentence. If the welders are still employees at the factory, we can
still use "employed" in that sentence?
The factory employed two new welders yesterday.
I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
Love this term:-)
Don't get bogged down in it,
It's a passing phrase, just a flush in the pan.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Yurui Liu
2021-01-13 04:17:40 UTC
Permalink
Tony Cooper 在 2021年1月13日 星期三下午12:00:44 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道:
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:43:13 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following sentence.
If the welders are still employees at the factory, we can still use "employed"
in that sentence?
The factory employed two new welders yesterday.
I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
I thought you would say to use "hired."
Post by Tony Cooper
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Tony Cooper
2021-01-13 05:15:55 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:17:40 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Tony Cooper ? 2021?1?13? ?????12:00:44 [UTC+8] ??????
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:43:13 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following sentence.
If the welders are still employees at the factory, we can still use "employed"
in that sentence?
The factory employed two new welders yesterday.
I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
I thought you would say to use "hired."
I would. Either is correct. I don't have preference for either.

You didn't ask if "employed" was the only correct term to use. You
asked it was correct.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Ken Blake
2021-01-13 16:53:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Tony Cooper 在 2021年1月13日 星期三下午12:00:44 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道:
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:43:13 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following sentence.
If the welders are still employees at the factory, we can still use "employed"
in that sentence?
The factory employed two new welders yesterday.
I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
I thought you would say to use "hired."
"Hired" is more common. "Employed" is OK, but I never use it; to me it's
just a needlessly fancy word.
--
Ken
Jerry Friedman
2021-01-13 17:14:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Yurui Liu
Tony Cooper 在 2021年1月13日 星期三下午12:00:44 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道:
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:43:13 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following sentence.
If the welders are still employees at the factory, we can still use "employed"
in that sentence?
The factory employed two new welders yesterday.
I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
I thought you would say to use "hired."
"Hired" is more common. "Employed" is OK, but I never use it; to me it's
just a needlessly fancy word.
Using "employ" for "hire" sounds strange to me. The college I word for
hired me eighteen years ago (I think) and has employed me ever since.
--
Jerry Friedman
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-01-13 17:49:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
On 1/12/2021 9:17 PM, Yurui Liu wrote:> > Tony Cooper 在 2021年1月13日
星期三下午12:00:44 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道:> >> On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:43:13 -0800
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following
sentence.> >> >If the welders are still employees at the factory, we
can still use "employed"> >> >in that sentence?> >> >> >> >The factory
employed two new welders yesterday.> >> >> >> >I'd appreciate your
help.> >> Yes. Bog standard.> >> > I thought you would say to use
"hired."
"Hired" is more common. "Employed" is OK, but I never use it; to me
it's> just a needlessly fancy word.
Using "employ" for "hire" sounds strange to me. The college I word for
hired me eighteen years ago (I think) and has employed me ever since.
That seems to be exactly my usage, though that may have been
contaminated by French usage: the CNRS recruits people, much like an
army.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Tony Cooper
2021-01-13 18:55:14 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 18:49:59 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Jerry Friedman
On 1/12/2021 9:17 PM, Yurui Liu wrote:> > Tony Cooper ? 2021?1?13?
?????12:00:44 [UTC+8] ??????> >> On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:43:13 -0800
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following
sentence.> >> >If the welders are still employees at the factory, we
can still use "employed"> >> >in that sentence?> >> >> >> >The factory
employed two new welders yesterday.> >> >> >> >I'd appreciate your
help.> >> Yes. Bog standard.> >> > I thought you would say to use
"hired."
"Hired" is more common. "Employed" is OK, but I never use it; to me
it's> just a needlessly fancy word.
Using "employ" for "hire" sounds strange to me. The college I word for
hired me eighteen years ago (I think) and has employed me ever since.
That seems to be exactly my usage, though that may have been
contaminated by French usage: the CNRS recruits people, much like an
army.
My point is that either is acceptable and neither is wrong. Both
communicate the same idea. There may be user preference, though.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Yurui Liu
2021-01-14 06:23:46 UTC
Permalink
Jerry Friedman 在 2021年1月14日 星期四上午1:14:10 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道:
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Yurui Liu
Tony Cooper 在 2021年1月13日 星期三下午12:00:44 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道:
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:43:13 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following sentence.
If the welders are still employees at the factory, we can still use "employed"
in that sentence?
The factory employed two new welders yesterday.
I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
I thought you would say to use "hired."
"Hired" is more common. "Employed" is OK, but I never use it; to me it's
just a needlessly fancy word.
Using "employ" for "hire" sounds strange to me. The college I word for
hired me eighteen years ago (I think) and has employed me ever since.
Yes, that's the distinction between "employ" and "hire" I was thinking about.
It seems, for some people, that "employ" refers to a state, while "hire" refers to
the momentary action of giving someone a job:

The factory employs 30 welders. (a state)
= The factory has 30 welders on the payroll.

You wouldn't use "hires" in the above, would you?

In the following passage, does "employed" refer to a state or momentary action?

The IRS also said in a report published Monday that the agency
lost nearly 30,000 full-time job positions, including among enforcement
personnel, between fiscal 2010 and 2019. The IRS employed about 78,000
people last year.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/08/attention-taxpayers-irs-audits-have-fallen-significantly.html
--
Jerry Friedman
Snidely
2021-01-14 06:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Jerry Friedman 在 2021年1月14日 星期四上午1:14:10 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道:
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Yurui Liu
Tony Cooper 在 2021年1月13日 星期三下午12:00:44 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道:
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:43:13 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following
sentence. If the welders are still employees at the factory, we can
still use "employed" in that sentence?
The factory employed two new welders yesterday.
I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
I thought you would say to use "hired."
"Hired" is more common. "Employed" is OK, but I never use it; to me it's
just a needlessly fancy word.
Using "employ" for "hire" sounds strange to me. The college I word for
hired me eighteen years ago (I think) and has employed me ever since.
Yes, that's the distinction between "employ" and "hire" I was thinking about.
It seems, for some people, that "employ" refers to a state, while "hire"
I wouldn't use "momentary"; I would say "hire" is for changing the
state.
Post by Yurui Liu
The factory employs 30 welders. (a state)
= The factory has 30 welders on the payroll.
You wouldn't use "hires" in the above, would you?
Myself, not normally. The noun version doesn't work well, there
either. "New hires" and "hirees" both tend to be used for those who
just became employed.

I would, however, consider it okay to use "hired hand" for someone
steadily employed (normally on a farm; hired hands were the non-family
members who worked for a farmer; there are metaphorical uses, though).
Post by Yurui Liu
In the following passage, does "employed" refer to a state or momentary action?
A state, not a change of state. ("lost" is used for the change of
state)

<quote>
Post by Yurui Liu
The IRS also said in a report published Monday that the agency
lost nearly 30,000 full-time job positions, including among enforcement
personnel, between fiscal 2010 and 2019. The IRS employed about 78,000
people last year.
</quote>
Post by Yurui Liu
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/08/attention-taxpayers-irs-audits-have-fallen-significantly.html
It is recommended to wrap URLs in '<' and '>', especially so for long
URLs. The recommendation extends to URIs.


/dps
--
"I'm glad unicorns don't ever need upgrades."
"We are as up as it is possible to get graded!"
_Phoebe and Her Unicorn_, 2016.05.15
Tony Cooper
2021-01-14 13:37:37 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:23:46 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Jerry Friedman ? 2021?1?14? ?????1:14:10 [UTC+8] ??????
Post by Ken Blake
Tony Cooper ? 2021?1?13? ?????12:00:44 [UTC+8] ??????
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:43:13 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following sentence.
If the welders are still employees at the factory, we can still use "employed"
in that sentence?
The factory employed two new welders yesterday.
I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
I thought you would say to use "hired."
"Hired" is more common. "Employed" is OK, but I never use it; to me it's
just a needlessly fancy word.
Using "employ" for "hire" sounds strange to me. The college I word for
hired me eighteen years ago (I think) and has employed me ever since.
Yes, that's the distinction between "employ" and "hire" I was thinking about.
It seems, for some people, that "employ" refers to a state, while "hire" refers to
The factory employs 30 welders. (a state)
= The factory has 30 welders on the payroll.
You wouldn't use "hires" in the above, would you?
In the following passage, does "employed" refer to a state or momentary action?
The IRS also said in a report published Monday that the agency
lost nearly 30,000 full-time job positions, including among enforcement
personnel, between fiscal 2010 and 2019. The IRS employed about 78,000
people last year.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/08/attention-taxpayers-irs-audits-have-fallen-significantly.html
The IRS and CNBC are both US organizations. In the US, the word
"hire" does not have the temporary or rental meaning.

The 78,000 figure is the total number of people employed by the IRS in
2019. If any people were added (hired) to the IRS workforce, the
number is not stated in the paragraph quoted. (Even though the
paragraph speaks of jobs lost, some new people may have been hired to
replace outgoing people.)
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Snidely
2021-01-14 22:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
The 78,000 figure is the total number of people employed by the IRS in
2019. If any people were added (hired) to the IRS workforce, the
number is not stated in the paragraph quoted. (Even though the
paragraph speaks of jobs lost, some new people may have been hired to
replace outgoing people.)
Yes, but the "lost" figure is [almost certainly] the /net/ change.
There could have been 80,000 dropped from the employment rolls and
2,000 replacements hired, for a loss of 78,000.

/dps
--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean
Marius Hancu
2021-01-18 12:32:32 UTC
Permalink
Using "employ" for "hire" sounds strange to me. The college I word for
hired me eighteen years ago (I think) and has employed me ever since.
I agree in the main with you, but look here:

MWU:
~~~
employ

c : to use or engage the services of
~~~

Best.
--
Marius Hancu
Paul Carmichael
2021-01-20 12:19:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Tony Cooper 在 2021年1月13日 星期三下午12:00:44 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道:
Hi, > >I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following sentence. >If
the welders are still employees at the factory, we can still use "employed" >in that
sentence? > >The factory employed two new welders yesterday. > >I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
I thought you would say to use "hired."
"Hired" is more common. "Employed" is OK, but I never use it; to me it's just a needlessly
fancy word.
For me (BrE), hire is for cars. Hire = rent.

I would say "took on" or "employed".
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio
Ken Blake
2021-01-20 15:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Yurui Liu
Tony Cooper 在 2021年1月13日 星期三下午12:00:44 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道:
Hi, > >I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following sentence. >If
the welders are still employees at the factory, we can still use "employed" >in that
sentence? > >The factory employed two new welders yesterday. > >I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
I thought you would say to use "hired."
"Hired" is more common. "Employed" is OK, but I never use it; to me it's just a needlessly
fancy word.
For me (BrE), hire is for cars. Hire = rent.
Yes, I know. I've often seen it used that way in BrE novels. But in Ame,
a car can't be hired; only a person can.
Post by Paul Carmichael
I would say "took on" or "employed".
--
Ken
Quinn C
2021-01-20 17:55:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Yurui Liu
Tony Cooper 在 2021年1月13日 星期三下午12:00:44 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道:
Hi, > >I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following sentence. >If
the welders are still employees at the factory, we can still use "employed" >in that
sentence? > >The factory employed two new welders yesterday. > >I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
I thought you would say to use "hired."
"Hired" is more common. "Employed" is OK, but I never use it; to me it's just a needlessly
fancy word.
For me (BrE), hire is for cars. Hire = rent.
Yes, I know. I've often seen it used that way in BrE novels. But in Ame,
a car can't be hired; only a person can.
These terms are confusing: when you rent an apartment, the contract is
called a lease, but if you have a leased car, it's not a rental.
--
- History is full of lies.
- Ain't that the truth.
-- Andromeda, S04E12
Ken Blake
2021-01-20 19:31:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Yurui Liu
Tony Cooper 在 2021年1月13日 星期三下午12:00:44 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道:
Hi, > >I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following sentence. >If
the welders are still employees at the factory, we can still use "employed" >in that
sentence? > >The factory employed two new welders yesterday. > >I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
I thought you would say to use "hired."
"Hired" is more common. "Employed" is OK, but I never use it; to me it's just a needlessly
fancy word.
For me (BrE), hire is for cars. Hire = rent.
Yes, I know. I've often seen it used that way in BrE novels. But in Ame,
a car can't be hired; only a person can.
These terms are confusing: when you rent an apartment, the contract is
called a lease,
To me, "lease" and "rent" are not synonyms. Some apartments are leased
for a fixed period of time. Other apartments are rented by the month.
Post by Quinn C
but if you have a leased car, it's not a rental.
Right. It's for a fixed period of time.
--
Ken
Tony Cooper
2021-01-20 20:04:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
To me, "lease" and "rent" are not synonyms. Some apartments are leased
for a fixed period of time. Other apartments are rented by the month.
In the US, you can lease an apartment for a specified length of time,
but if you remain in that apartment after that time without signing a
new lease, you are a month-to-month renter.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Quinn C
2021-01-21 01:19:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Carmichael
"Hired" is more common. "Employed" is OK, but I never use it; to me it's just a needlessly
fancy word.
For me (BrE), hire is for cars. Hire = rent.
Yes, I know. I've often seen it used that way in BrE novels. But in Ame,
a car can't be hired; only a person can.
These terms are confusing: when you rent an apartment, the contract is
called a lease,
To me, "lease" and "rent" are not synonyms. Some apartments are leased
for a fixed period of time. Other apartments are rented by the month.
I thought about asking how the terms are used in other places; consider
me asking it now.

I'm not aware that there are two systems here. You talk about renting an
apartment; I've never heard of "leasing an apartment". But the contract
is always called a "lease" ("bail" in French.)

Almost all the contracts run from July-June, when they get renewed. I
don't expect that to be the same in other places. In Germany, after the
first year or two, you can usually leave with two or three months
notice.
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Quinn C
but if you have a leased car, it's not a rental.
Right. It's for a fixed period of time.
And a rental is not? I think the difference needs to be described in
another fashion.
--
Do not they speak false English ... that doth not speak thou to one,
and what ever he be, Father, Mother, King, or Judge, is he not a
Novice, and Unmannerly, and an Ideot, and a Fool, that speaks Your
to one, which is not to be spoken to a singular, but to many?
-- George Fox (1660)
Tony Cooper
2021-01-21 02:11:07 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 20:19:41 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Carmichael
"Hired" is more common. "Employed" is OK, but I never use it; to me it's just a needlessly
fancy word.
For me (BrE), hire is for cars. Hire = rent.
Yes, I know. I've often seen it used that way in BrE novels. But in Ame,
a car can't be hired; only a person can.
These terms are confusing: when you rent an apartment, the contract is
called a lease,
To me, "lease" and "rent" are not synonyms. Some apartments are leased
for a fixed period of time. Other apartments are rented by the month.
I thought about asking how the terms are used in other places; consider
me asking it now.
I'm not aware that there are two systems here. You talk about renting an
apartment; I've never heard of "leasing an apartment". But the contract
is always called a "lease" ("bail" in French.)
Almost all the contracts run from July-June, when they get renewed. I
don't expect that to be the same in other places. In Germany, after the
first year or two, you can usually leave with two or three months
notice.
In the US, I don't think you can say there is a way that apartment
rentals work as far as when you can leave and what notice you have to
provide. It's a matter of state or city law.
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Quinn C
but if you have a leased car, it's not a rental.
Right. It's for a fixed period of time.
And a rental is not? I think the difference needs to be described in
another fashion.
We rent an automobile for a pre-determined period of time, but that
time can be extended. Normally people rent cars for a period of days
or weeks at the most. We lease an automobile for a fixed period of
time, and usually have the option to purchase that automobile at the
end of the lease period. The lease period is generally one to three
years.

The lease is a contract that obligates the lessee to retain the
vehicle for the duration of the lease. If turned in early, there are
usually stiff penalties.

If there are leasing contracts that can be renewed at the end of
specified end, I'm not aware of them. In general, if the lease
payments are paid promptly during the lease period, the vehicle can be
purchased and financed at a reasonable rate at the end of the lease
period.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Rich Ulrich
2021-01-21 06:03:22 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 21:11:07 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
In the US, I don't think you can say there is a way that apartment
rentals work as far as when you can leave and what notice you have to
provide. It's a matter of state or city law.
Also - It can be a matter of what the lease itself specifies
about terms of renewal.

My lease contract has lenient specifications about moving
out - one month notice (or rent). I've been renewing that
original lease for 40 years. I had to act to preserve that.

When I had lived here two years, they tried to give me a new
lease with new terms (two or three months) instead of a simple
renewal. I scratched out that language, wrote in the old, and
signed and returned it. They weren't totally pleased with that,
either my failure to sign or the messy page. But it costs money
and effort to clean and re-rent an apartment.

After they figured out I was happy with the old language, they
wrote up the renewal that says this new rent-amount is an
addendum and "All other terms of the lease agreement
will remain in effect." I've been signing a similar page every
year since.
--
Rich Ulrich
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-21 16:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
To me, "lease" and "rent" are not synonyms. Some apartments are leased
for a fixed period of time. Other apartments are rented by the month.
I thought about asking how the terms are used in other places; consider
me asking it now.
I'm not aware that there are two systems here. You talk about renting an
apartment; I've never heard of "leasing an apartment". But the contract
is always called a "lease" ("bail" in French.)
One is more likely to lease office space than living space, but since
a year-long rental involves a lease, you can also say you've leased
an apartment.

Ads for apartment rentals will specify e.g. "one-year lease." If you renew
a two-year lease, the Rent Control people allow the landlord a higher
rent increase than on a one-year lease.
Post by Quinn C
Almost all the contracts run from July-June, when they get renewed. I
don't expect that to be the same in other places. In Germany, after the
first year or two, you can usually leave with two or three months
notice.
April 1 was the usual moving day in NYC.
Tony Cooper
2021-01-21 17:29:45 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 08:54:41 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
To me, "lease" and "rent" are not synonyms. Some apartments are leased
for a fixed period of time. Other apartments are rented by the month.
I thought about asking how the terms are used in other places; consider
me asking it now.
I'm not aware that there are two systems here. You talk about renting an
apartment; I've never heard of "leasing an apartment". But the contract
is always called a "lease" ("bail" in French.)
One is more likely to lease office space than living space, but since
a year-long rental involves a lease, you can also say you've leased
an apartment.
What? Almost every apartment or house that is rented in this area -
and probably in the entire country - is rented with a lease agreement.

If the renter must sign a lease, then it's a leased apartment or
house.

There are no-lease rental units where the tenant is "month-to-month"
from the onset, but they are the less desirable type of units.

If a tenant signs a lease, but stays in the unit after the expiration
of the lease without signing a new lease, the tenant is
"month-to-month".

You could say that tenant is no longer in a leased apartment/house,
but would have been during the initial lease period.

In Florida, both a year lease and a three-month lease are the two
standard periods. The three-month lease exists in Florida to
accomodate "snowbird" renters. Any rental agreement less than three
months is taxed differently - and higher - as a "short-term" rental.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Ads for apartment rentals will specify e.g. "one-year lease." If you renew
a two-year lease, the Rent Control people allow the landlord a higher
rent increase than on a one-year lease.
I know that some cities or states have a Rent Control bureau, but that
is not prevelant in all parts of the country. Only four states -
New York, New Jersey, California, and Maryland - have rent control
laws.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-21 17:55:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 08:54:41 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One is more likely to lease office space than living space, but since
a year-long rental involves a lease, you can also say you've leased
an apartment.
What? Almost every apartment or house that is rented in this area -
and probably in the entire country - is rented with a lease agreement.
If the renter must sign a lease, then it's a leased apartment or
house.
There are no-lease rental units where the tenant is "month-to-month"
from the onset, but they are the less desirable type of units.
SO FRIGGING WHAT? They are rented, not leased.

Month-to-month is not all that unusual in NYC. I have no data on
"undesirability" of month-to-month accommodations. In normal
times, quite a few people will need a living space for several
months but not a whole year: short-term office contracts; Broadway
performers; and on and on.

THE WAY THEY DO IT IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT
NECESSARILY THE WAY IT IS DONE EVERYWHERE.
Post by Tony Cooper
If a tenant signs a lease, but stays in the unit after the expiration
of the lease without signing a new lease, the tenant is
"month-to-month".
You could say that tenant is no longer in a leased apartment/house,
but would have been during the initial lease period.
In Florida, both a year lease and a three-month lease are the two
standard periods. The three-month lease exists in Florida to
accomodate "snowbird" renters. Any rental agreement less than three
months is taxed differently - and higher - as a "short-term" rental.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Ads for apartment rentals will specify e.g. "one-year lease." If you renew
a two-year lease, the Rent Control people allow the landlord a higher
rent increase than on a one-year lease.
I know that some cities or states have a Rent Control bureau, but that
is not prevelant in all parts of the country. Only four states -
New York, New Jersey, California, and Maryland - have rent control
laws.
Yet you have no observation on the fact that office space is "leased"
and living space is "rented."
Tony Cooper
2021-01-21 18:20:25 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:55:22 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 08:54:41 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One is more likely to lease office space than living space, but since
a year-long rental involves a lease, you can also say you've leased
an apartment.
What? Almost every apartment or house that is rented in this area -
and probably in the entire country - is rented with a lease agreement.
If the renter must sign a lease, then it's a leased apartment or
house.
There are no-lease rental units where the tenant is "month-to-month"
from the onset, but they are the less desirable type of units.
SO FRIGGING WHAT? They are rented, not leased.
An interesting, albeit incomprehensible, distinction.

The tenant pays rent for a home, apartment, or office space. The
tenant is a renter in all cases. The tenant is can be under a lease
agreement for a home, apartment, or office space. The tenant is a
lessee in all cases where a lease is signed.

How can you possibly say the unit is rented but not leased when there
is a lease in effect?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
THE WAY THEY DO IT IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT
NECESSARILY THE WAY IT IS DONE EVERYWHERE.
My point exactly when you speak of Rent Control.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Yet you have no observation on the fact that office space is "leased"
and living space is "rented."
Only that it is a completely false statement.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Tony Cooper
2021-01-21 19:46:18 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 13:20:25 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:55:22 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 08:54:41 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One is more likely to lease office space than living space, but since
a year-long rental involves a lease, you can also say you've leased
an apartment.
What? Almost every apartment or house that is rented in this area -
and probably in the entire country - is rented with a lease agreement.
If the renter must sign a lease, then it's a leased apartment or
house.
There are no-lease rental units where the tenant is "month-to-month"
from the onset, but they are the less desirable type of units.
SO FRIGGING WHAT? They are rented, not leased.
An interesting, albeit incomprehensible, distinction.
The tenant pays rent for a home, apartment, or office space. The
tenant is a renter in all cases. The tenant is can be under a lease
agreement for a home, apartment, or office space. The tenant is a
lessee in all cases where a lease is signed.
How can you possibly say the unit is rented but not leased when there
is a lease in effect?
After posting this I left the house to do some errands and noticed an
office building with a large sign outside that said "OFFICE SPACE FOR
RENT" and listed the square footage of the units aviailable.

Not stated, but expected, is that these spaces will be rented with
lease agreements.

I'm sure, somewhere in the area, there's a sign on another building
that says "OFFICE SPACE FOR LEASE", but the viewer of either sign
understands that the spaces are available for rent with a lease
requirement.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
RH Draney
2021-01-21 23:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
After posting this I left the house to do some errands and noticed an
office building with a large sign outside that said "OFFICE SPACE FOR
RENT" and listed the square footage of the units aviailable.
Not stated, but expected, is that these spaces will be rented with
lease agreements.
I'm sure, somewhere in the area, there's a sign on another building
that says "OFFICE SPACE FOR LEASE", but the viewer of either sign
understands that the spaces are available for rent with a lease
requirement.
Around this last Christmas, a friend sent me a picture of a building
with a very common sign reading "FOR LEASE", under which someone had
spray painted "NAVIDAD"....

I countered with a canister of antibacterial cloths labelled "SANI
CLOTH" with "is coming to town" written beneath in Sharpie....r
Sam Plusnet
2021-01-22 02:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
Post by Tony Cooper
After posting this I left the house to do some errands and noticed an
office building with a large sign outside that said "OFFICE SPACE FOR
RENT" and listed the square footage of the units aviailable.
Not stated, but expected, is that these spaces will be rented with
lease agreements.
I'm sure, somewhere in the area, there's a sign on another building
that says "OFFICE SPACE FOR LEASE", but the viewer of either sign
understands that the spaces are available for rent with a lease
requirement.
Around this last Christmas, a friend sent me a picture of a building
with a very common sign reading "FOR LEASE", under which someone had
spray painted "NAVIDAD"....
I countered with a canister of antibacterial cloths labelled "SANI
CLOTH" with "is coming to town" written beneath in Sharpie....r
Back in the good old days, people contented themselves with inserting an
"i" into "TO LET" signs.

Simple times, simple pleasures, stupid people.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-01-22 09:23:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by RH Draney
Post by Tony Cooper
After posting this I left the house to do some errands and noticed an
office building with a large sign outside that said "OFFICE SPACE FOR
RENT" and listed the square footage of the units aviailable.
Not stated, but expected, is that these spaces will be rented with
lease agreements.
I'm sure, somewhere in the area, there's a sign on another building
that says "OFFICE SPACE FOR LEASE", but the viewer of either sign
understands that the spaces are available for rent with a lease
requirement.
Around this last Christmas, a friend sent me a picture of a building
with a very common sign reading "FOR LEASE", under which someone had
spray painted "NAVIDAD"....
I countered with a canister of antibacterial cloths labelled "SANI
CLOTH" with "is coming to town" written beneath in Sharpie....r
Back in the good old days, people contented themselves with inserting an
"i" into "TO LET" signs.
Simple times, simple pleasures, stupid people.
If you've ever had to sit for a while in a Welsh lavatory, you will have
"toiled".
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-21 22:05:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:55:22 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 08:54:41 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One is more likely to lease office space than living space, but since
a year-long rental involves a lease, you can also say you've leased
an apartment.
What? Almost every apartment or house that is rented in this area -
and probably in the entire country - is rented with a lease agreement.
If the renter must sign a lease, then it's a leased apartment or
house.
There are no-lease rental units where the tenant is "month-to-month"
from the onset, but they are the less desirable type of units.
SO FRIGGING WHAT? They are rented, not leased.
An interesting, albeit incomprehensible, distinction.
Then why did you make it? You said "There are no-lease rental units."
Post by Tony Cooper
The tenant pays rent for a home, apartment, or office space. The
tenant is a renter in all cases. The tenant is can be under a lease
agreement for a home, apartment, or office space. The tenant is a
lessee in all cases where a lease is signed.
How can you possibly say the unit is rented but not leased when there
is a lease in effect?
Ask yourself that. You posited the existence of "no-lease rental units."

In fact, such things exist.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
THE WAY THEY DO IT IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT
NECESSARILY THE WAY IT IS DONE EVERYWHERE.
My point exactly when you speak of Rent Control.
I was not "speaking of Rent Control." I happened to mention that
one-year and two-year leases are treated differently under such
a system. That has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with rent vs.
lease. (In NYC, "Rent Control" has been superseded by "Rent
Stabilization," which is less unfair to landlords, though the old
term is still heard because it's easier to say.)
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Yet you have no observation on the fact that office space is "leased"
and living space is "rented."
Only that it is a completely false statement.
Then you might want to open your eyes when you drive past a
new office park or industrial park (as they are euphemistically
called these days) with their billboards offering space.

You shouldn't be driving with your eyes closed, anyway.
Tony Cooper
2021-01-21 22:43:59 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 14:05:22 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:55:22 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 08:54:41 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One is more likely to lease office space than living space, but since
a year-long rental involves a lease, you can also say you've leased
an apartment.
What? Almost every apartment or house that is rented in this area -
and probably in the entire country - is rented with a lease agreement.
If the renter must sign a lease, then it's a leased apartment or
house.
There are no-lease rental units where the tenant is "month-to-month"
from the onset, but they are the less desirable type of units.
SO FRIGGING WHAT? They are rented, not leased.
An interesting, albeit incomprehensible, distinction.
Then why did you make it? You said "There are no-lease rental units."
Post by Tony Cooper
The tenant pays rent for a home, apartment, or office space. The
tenant is a renter in all cases. The tenant is can be under a lease
agreement for a home, apartment, or office space. The tenant is a
lessee in all cases where a lease is signed.
How can you possibly say the unit is rented but not leased when there
is a lease in effect?
Ask yourself that. You posited the existence of "no-lease rental units."
In fact, such things exist.
Of course they do. That's what I said.

The fact that some are rented but not with a lease agreement doesn't
conflict with anything I wrote. Most are rented with a lease
agreement, but "most" doesn't mean "all".

I have absolutely no idea what point you think you are making.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Yet you have no observation on the fact that office space is "leased"
and living space is "rented."
Only that it is a completely false statement.
Then you might want to open your eyes when you drive past a
new office park or industrial park (as they are euphemistically
called these days) with their billboards offering space.
What's this now? You think the signs all use "lease" not "rent"?

https://tinyurl.com/y6pkfpjm or the long one:

https://www.google.com/search?q=office+space+for+rent&sxsrf=ALeKk01BCZkvM1aRL1KWCiTwWCwHKTChuw:1611267636904&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjxs4rZh67uAhXGg-AKHakuD7IQ_AUoA3oECAQQBQ&biw=2133&bih=1174

Are you under the delusion that the sign determines whether or not a
lease will be required?
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Adam Funk
2021-01-22 09:56:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
To me, "lease" and "rent" are not synonyms. Some apartments are leased
for a fixed period of time. Other apartments are rented by the month.
I thought about asking how the terms are used in other places; consider
me asking it now.
I'm not aware that there are two systems here. You talk about renting an
apartment; I've never heard of "leasing an apartment". But the contract
is always called a "lease" ("bail" in French.)
One is more likely to lease office space than living space, but since
a year-long rental involves a lease, you can also say you've leased
an apartment.
Ads for apartment rentals will specify e.g. "one-year lease." If you renew
a two-year lease, the Rent Control people allow the landlord a higher
rent increase than on a one-year lease.
Post by Quinn C
Almost all the contracts run from July-June, when they get renewed. I
don't expect that to be the same in other places. In Germany, after the
first year or two, you can usually leave with two or three months
notice.
April 1 was the usual moving day in NYC.
So you can leave pranks for the next occupant?
--
Civilization is a race between catastrophe and education.
---H G Wells
CDB
2021-01-22 14:31:54 UTC
Permalink
[renting in various places, including Quebec:]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Almost all the contracts run from July-June, when they get
renewed. I don't expect that to be the same in other places. In
Germany, after the first year or two, you can usually leave with
two or three months notice.
April 1 was the usual moving day in NYC.
In like wise, Canada Day is the usual moving day in Quebec.
--
Might as well be good for something.
Mark Brader
2021-01-21 04:57:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
To me, "lease" and "rent" are not synonyms. Some apartments are leased
for a fixed period of time. Other apartments are rented by the month.
Not synonyms, but one is a subset of the other. If you lease an
apartment, you also rent it.
--
Mark Brader | "Don't be silly. A pedant is something you hang
Toronto | round your neck, or else you hang them by the neck."
***@vex.net | --Rob Bannister
Lewis
2021-01-20 19:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Yurui Liu
Tony Cooper 在 2021年1月13日 星期三下午12:00:44 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道:
Hi, > >I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following sentence. >If
the welders are still employees at the factory, we can still use "employed" >in that
sentence? > >The factory employed two new welders yesterday. > >I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
I thought you would say to use "hired."
"Hired" is more common. "Employed" is OK, but I never use it; to me it's just a needlessly
fancy word.
For me (BrE), hire is for cars. Hire = rent.
Yes, I know. I've often seen it used that way in BrE novels. But in Ame,
a car can't be hired; only a person can.
I think that you can hire a car in the US, but that means hiring a limo
with a driver. I am not sure, but I think I have heard that. Maybe an
east coast thing?
--
When someone asks you, A penny for your thoughts, and you put your
two cents in, what happens to the other penny?
Tony Cooper
2021-01-20 20:05:45 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:44:27 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Carmichael
Tony Cooper ? 2021?1?13? ?????12:00:44 [UTC+8] ??????
Hi, > >I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following sentence. >If
the welders are still employees at the factory, we can still use "employed" >in that
sentence? > >The factory employed two new welders yesterday. > >I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
I thought you would say to use "hired."
"Hired" is more common. "Employed" is OK, but I never use it; to me it's just a needlessly
fancy word.
For me (BrE), hire is for cars. Hire = rent.
Yes, I know. I've often seen it used that way in BrE novels. But in Ame,
a car can't be hired; only a person can.
I think that you can hire a car in the US, but that means hiring a limo
with a driver. I am not sure, but I think I have heard that. Maybe an
east coast thing?
You are hiring the service, not the car, when you hire a limo. A car
comes with the service, but the driver is the service.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Lewis
2021-01-21 05:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:44:27 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Carmichael
Tony Cooper ? 2021?1?13? ?????12:00:44 [UTC+8] ??????
Hi, > >I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following sentence. >If
the welders are still employees at the factory, we can still use "employed" >in that
sentence? > >The factory employed two new welders yesterday. > >I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
I thought you would say to use "hired."
"Hired" is more common. "Employed" is OK, but I never use it; to me it's just a needlessly
fancy word.
For me (BrE), hire is for cars. Hire = rent.
Yes, I know. I've often seen it used that way in BrE novels. But in Ame,
a car can't be hired; only a person can.
I think that you can hire a car in the US, but that means hiring a limo
with a driver. I am not sure, but I think I have heard that. Maybe an
east coast thing?
You are hiring the service, not the car, when you hire a limo. A car
comes with the service, but the driver is the service.
But it's a "hired car"?
--
I think it would be fun to run a newspaper.
Tony Cooper
2021-01-21 15:37:44 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 05:34:17 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:44:27 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Carmichael
Tony Cooper ? 2021?1?13? ?????12:00:44 [UTC+8] ??????
Hi, > >I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following sentence. >If
the welders are still employees at the factory, we can still use "employed" >in that
sentence? > >The factory employed two new welders yesterday. > >I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
I thought you would say to use "hired."
"Hired" is more common. "Employed" is OK, but I never use it; to me it's just a needlessly
fancy word.
For me (BrE), hire is for cars. Hire = rent.
Yes, I know. I've often seen it used that way in BrE novels. But in Ame,
a car can't be hired; only a person can.
I think that you can hire a car in the US, but that means hiring a limo
with a driver. I am not sure, but I think I have heard that. Maybe an
east coast thing?
You are hiring the service, not the car, when you hire a limo. A car
comes with the service, but the driver is the service.
But it's a "hired car"?
I wouldn't say that.

There is a difference between what I wouldn't say or wouldn't use and
what I would consider to be wrong.

If someone said to me that they'd made arrangements for a hired car to
go to the event, I wouldn't blink an eye. I would pass that
information on as a limo has been ordered to take us to the event.

I fully understand that a "limo" is a vehicle, but limos don't come
without drivers so it's a service that has been arranged for.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Madhu
2021-01-21 10:22:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:44:27 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Carmichael
For me (BrE), hire is for cars. Hire = rent.
Yes, I know. I've often seen it used that way in BrE novels. But in
Ame, a car can't be hired; only a person can.
I think that you can hire a car in the US, but that means hiring a
limo with a driver. I am not sure, but I think I have heard
that. Maybe an east coast thing?
You are hiring the service, not the car, when you hire a limo. A car
comes with the service, but the driver is the service.
Some commonwealth(?) folk would be familiar with "Hire Purchase". "Rent to
Own" in AmE?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hire_purchase

That might clinch the equivalence
Lewis
2021-01-21 12:14:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madhu
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:44:27 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Carmichael
For me (BrE), hire is for cars. Hire = rent.
Yes, I know. I've often seen it used that way in BrE novels. But in
Ame, a car can't be hired; only a person can.
I think that you can hire a car in the US, but that means hiring a
limo with a driver. I am not sure, but I think I have heard
that. Maybe an east coast thing?
You are hiring the service, not the car, when you hire a limo. A car
comes with the service, but the driver is the service.
Some commonwealth(?) folk would be familiar with "Hire Purchase". "Rent to
Own" in AmE?
Rent to own, yes. I don't think I've heard Hire Purchase in AmE.

Rent to own seemed to be a lot more common about 20-30 years ago and I
used to see a lot various rent-to-own store fronts, which I no longer
see very much of.

OTOH, looking at the map around me there are a lot of locations for
"Rent-a-center" around the city, just none near me or along my most
frequent routes

I think one thing that changed is that most of their clients were
renting expensive electronics like televisions, and those are not as
expensive as they were. They seem to focus on furniture rent to own.

I did load up their website and they seem to have some name brands
(Samsung, LG) and a lot of brands I've never heard of (Skyworth TVs, for
example).

You can rent a 75" LG with 98 weekly payments of $30 for a total of just
under $3000 or buy it outright for $1322. Or buy it from Amazon for
$997. The model numbers are slightly different as the rental model is
evidently customized by LG for low end retailers like WalMart and
Rentacenter, but the specs appear to be the same.

So, pretty much still nothing but a predatory scam.
--
Liberty means responsibility.
Sam Plusnet
2021-01-21 19:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Madhu
Some commonwealth(?) folk would be familiar with "Hire Purchase". "Rent to
Own" in AmE?
Rent to own, yes. I don't think I've heard Hire Purchase in AmE.
"Hire Purchase" was the term used in the UK, thanks to the
"Hire-Purchase And Credit Sales Act" of 1952.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Tony Cooper
2021-01-21 20:00:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
Post by Madhu
Some commonwealth(?) folk would be familiar with "Hire Purchase". "Rent to
Own" in AmE?
Rent to own, yes. I don't think I've heard Hire Purchase in AmE.
"Hire Purchase" was the term used in the UK, thanks to the
"Hire-Purchase And Credit Sales Act" of 1952.
Sometimes expressed as "On the never-never".
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
charles
2021-01-21 20:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
Post by Madhu
Some commonwealth(?) folk would be familiar with "Hire Purchase".
"Rent to Own" in AmE?
Rent to own, yes. I don't think I've heard Hire Purchase in AmE.
"Hire Purchase" was the term used in the UK, thanks to the
"Hire-Purchase And Credit Sales Act" of 1952.
Unofficially it was called "The Never, Never"
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Sam Plusnet
2021-01-22 02:12:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
Post by Madhu
Some commonwealth(?) folk would be familiar with "Hire Purchase".
"Rent to Own" in AmE?
Rent to own, yes. I don't think I've heard Hire Purchase in AmE.
"Hire Purchase" was the term used in the UK, thanks to the
"Hire-Purchase And Credit Sales Act" of 1952.
Unofficially it was called "The Never, Never"
That thought travelled from Orlando to Surry in 17 minutes.
Not bad.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Jerry Friedman
2021-01-22 03:36:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by charles
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
Post by Madhu
Some commonwealth(?) folk would be familiar with "Hire Purchase".
"Rent to Own" in AmE?
Rent to own, yes. I don't think I've heard Hire Purchase in AmE.
"Hire Purchase" was the term used in the UK, thanks to the
"Hire-Purchase And Credit Sales Act" of 1952.
Unofficially it was called "The Never, Never"
That thought travelled from Orlando to Surry in 17 minutes.
Not bad.
But nothing compared to what heirs to the British crown achieve.
--
Jerry Friedman
Sam Plusnet
2021-01-22 18:36:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by charles
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
Post by Madhu
Some commonwealth(?) folk would be familiar with "Hire Purchase".
"Rent to Own" in AmE?
Rent to own, yes. I don't think I've heard Hire Purchase in AmE.
"Hire Purchase" was the term used in the UK, thanks to the
"Hire-Purchase And Credit Sales Act" of 1952.
Unofficially it was called "The Never, Never"
That thought travelled from Orlando to Surry in 17 minutes.
Not bad.
But nothing compared to what heirs to the British crown achieve.
Certainly no kingons involved. Minor nobility at best.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Ken Blake
2021-01-21 15:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:44:27 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Carmichael
Tony Cooper ? 2021?1?13? ?????12:00:44 [UTC+8] ??????
Hi, > >I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following sentence. >If
the welders are still employees at the factory, we can still use "employed" >in that
sentence? > >The factory employed two new welders yesterday. > >I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
I thought you would say to use "hired."
"Hired" is more common. "Employed" is OK, but I never use it; to me it's just a needlessly
fancy word.
For me (BrE), hire is for cars. Hire = rent.
Yes, I know. I've often seen it used that way in BrE novels. But in Ame,
a car can't be hired; only a person can.
I think that you can hire a car in the US, but that means hiring a limo
with a driver. I am not sure, but I think I have heard that. Maybe an
east coast thing?
You are hiring the service, not the car, when you hire a limo. A car
comes with the service, but the driver is the service.
I think it was W. C. Fields who supposedly said his grandfather hired
kites. He pulled a picture out of his wallet and said. "Here he is,
hirein' a kite."
--
Ken
Yurui Liu
2021-01-21 04:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Paul Carmichael 在 2021年1月20日 星期三下午8:19:33 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道:
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Yurui Liu
Tony Cooper 在 2021年1月13日 星期三下午12:00:44 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道:
Hi, > >I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following sentence. >If
the welders are still employees at the factory, we can still use "employed" >in that
sentence? > >The factory employed two new welders yesterday. > >I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
I thought you would say to use "hired."
"Hired" is more common. "Employed" is OK, but I never use it; to me it's just a needlessly
fancy word.
For me (BrE), hire is for cars. Hire = rent.
I would say "took on" or "employed".
Is "hire oneself OUT" current in BrE?
Post by Paul Carmichael
--
Paul.
https://paulc.es/elpatio
Janet
2021-01-21 11:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi, > >I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the following sentence. >If
the welders are still employees at the factory, we can still use "employed" >in that
sentence? > >The factory employed two new welders yesterday. > >I'd appreciate your help.
Yes. Bog standard.
I thought you would say to use "hired."
"Hired" is more common. "Employed" is OK, but I never use it; to me it's just a needlessly
fancy word.
For me (BrE), hire is for cars. Hire = rent.
I would say "took on" or "employed".
Is "hire oneself OUT" current in BrE?
Maybe by rentboys.

Janet
Peter Moylan
2021-01-21 01:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Yurui Liu
Tony Cooper 在 2021年1月13日 星期三下午12:00:44 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道:
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 18:43:13 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Hi, > >I'd like to know if "employed" is used properly in the
following sentence. >If the welders are still employees at the
factory, we can still use "employed" >in that sentence? > >The
factory employed two new welders yesterday. > >I'd appreciate
your help. Yes. Bog standard.
I thought you would say to use "hired."
"Hired" is more common. "Employed" is OK, but I never use it; to me
it's just a needlessly fancy word.
As a consequence of these differences, one may sometimes encounter
"hires" in AmE - but not in other Englishes - to refer to people.

Whenever I read "hires", my mind interprets it as an abbreviation for
"high-resolution".
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-21 16:56:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
As a consequence of these differences, one may sometimes encounter
"hires" in AmE - but not in other Englishes - to refer to people.
One may? Outside the fixed expression "hired hand," which someone
mentioned above?
Post by Peter Moylan
Whenever I read "hires", my mind interprets it as an abbreviation for
"high-resolution".
I want it to be "hi-rez" in crossword puzzles, but it almost always isn't.
Peter Moylan
2021-01-22 00:40:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
As a consequence of these differences, one may sometimes encounter
"hires" in AmE - but not in other Englishes - to refer to people.
One may? Outside the fixed expression "hired hand," which someone
mentioned above?
Or the expression "new hires", in reference to people recently employed.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Whenever I read "hires", my mind interprets it as an abbreviation for
"high-resolution".
I want it to be "hi-rez" in crossword puzzles, but it almost always isn't.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
Loading...