We can sit here in the corner unless you'd rather sit there by the window.

[GeneD]

We can sit here in the corner unless you'd rather sit there by the window. From "English Grammar" by Raymond Murphy.

I can't understand the example above. In the exercise, I should have made a choice between "as long as" and "unless", and I chose the first. I made the sentence simpler getting rid of "would rather" which I don't know why is used there (We can sit here in the corner if you sit there by the window.), but the answer key says it should be "unless", and it shows that I clearly don't understand the sentence and have rephrased it wrongly. Could you please explain to me the meaning of the sentence and why exactly "would rather" is used there?

 

[JMurray]

We can sit here in the corner unless you'd rather sit there by the window.

The usual interpretation would be: We can sit here in the corner, but if you'd rather be by the window, we can sit there.

… "would rather" is used because the speaker is asking the other person for their preference … here or there?

 

[GeneD]

Could you give some examples so I can catch the pattern? I'm trying to get used to this structure (with would rather), but it still looks unusual (if not incomprehensible ) to me.

I'll try to make that sentence very simple (primitively simple, I would say) in one more attempt to figure out who and where should sit. :-D We can sit here in the corner if you don't want to sit by the window. Is this what that sentence really means?

 

[jutfrank]

We can sit here in the corner if you don't want to sit by the window. Is this what that sentence really means?

No. It means:

I suggest we sit here in the corner. But, if you would prefer to sit by the window, that's okay with me.

unless is equivalent to except in the case that.

would rather is equivalent to would prefer to.

 

[GeneD]

I think I've got it. Finally. (I'm not quick-witted as you can see.) But it would help if you confirmed my assumption if it's correct. The speaker is addressing someone accompanying them, right? From the very beginning, I thought it is someone from another company who's being addressed, and the sentence didn't make sense to me, consequently. What do you say? Have I got it right?

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, there are two people, who are accompanying each other. They want to sit together at the same table. They're choosing which table to sit at.

 

[GoesStation]

The speaker is addressing someone accompanying them, right? From the very beginning, I thought it is someone from another company who's being addressed ….

Someone accompanying them is not necessarily someone from another company.

 

[GeneD]

Someone accompanying them is not necessarily someone from another company.

This is the opposite of what I meant to say. :-D I wanted to say that, at first, I thought that the speaker was talking to someone from another company (which didn't make sense and caused that long-standing misunderstanding), and at last I figured out that that sentence was addressed to a person from the same company (that is, accompanying them).

 

[GoesStation]

I figured out that that sentence was addressed to a person from the same company (that is, accompanying them).

Company is sometimes used to mean "group of people" (and has a formal definition of that sort in the military). However, in the same company means "working for the same firm" or "a member of the same military unit". It doesn't mean "in a nearby location".

Confusingly, you can say that you're in the company of someone who's nearby.

 

[GeneD]

Company is sometimes used to mean "group of people" (and has a formal definition of that sort in the military). However, in the same company means "working for the same firm" or "a member of the same military unit". It doesn't mean "in a nearby location".

Confusingly, you can say that you're in the company of someone who's nearby.

I've just looked up in the dictionary and found such meanings of "company" as "the activity of being with other people" and "people you are with". The dictionary is British, though. And dictionaries don't always tell whether a word usage is natural or not. I'm burning with curiosity. Is what I said in post #8 comprehensible for BrE speakers, and if so, to what extent is it natural? I mean the usage of "company".

 

[jutfrank]

I'm burning with curiosity. Is what I said in post #8 comprehensible for BrE speakers, and if so, to what extent is it natural? I mean the usage of "company".

Comprehensible, in context, yes. Natural, no.

This is not related to BrE/AmE.

 

[GoesStation]

Comprehensible, in context, yes. Natural, no.

This is not related to BrE/AmE.

I don't think it's comprehensible in the sentence Gene wrote. I read it as referring to a visitor from a different firm and only understood the intended meaning after Gene explained it.