You can call/contact me at/on this number. Which combination is more common?

[Aamir Tariq]

When you give someone your contact number and ask him or her to contact you on/at that number how would you ask him or her to contact you at/on the same number?

Here is my business/visiting/contact card. You can call/contact/reach me at/on this number.

Kindly let me know which combination is more common and natural among native speakers.

Regards,
Aamir the Global Citizen

 

[emsr2d2]

"Here's my card. You can contact me on that number."

However, it would be a bit pointless to give someone a card with a phone number on if you can't be reached at that number! I'd just go with "Here's my card".

 

[Aamir Tariq]

"Here's my card. You can contact me on that number."

However, it would be a bit pointless to give someone a card with a phone number on if you can't be reached at that number! I'd just go with "Here's my card".

There is a possibility that there are more than one number or may be three numbers and since the card was printed a couple of years ago the person may not be using one or two of them and only one of the numbers is currently active.

 

[Aamir Tariq]

"Here's my card. You can contact me on that number."

However, it would be a bit pointless to give someone a card with a phone number on if you can't be reached at that number! I'd just go with "Here's my card".

From what I can see in your answer. You have used two "prepositions"

"Here's my card. You can contact me on that number."
And
"if you can't be reached at that number! I'd just go with "Here's my card".

So can both the prepositions "on" and "at" be used with "number" or "at" is used while you use the verb "reach"? as "You can reach me at this number" and should we use the preposition "on" while we use "contact", "You can contact me on this number" or "You can contact me at this number" is also correct?

 

[emsr2d2]

There is a possibility that there [STRIKE]are[/STRIKE] is more than one number, [STRIKE]or[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]may be[/STRIKE] maybe three numbers. [STRIKE]and[/STRIKE] Since the card was printed a couple of years ago, the person may not be using one or two of them and only one of the numbers is currently active.

See above. I hope that person doesn't expect to be successful in whatever business they're in, if they're that disorganised with their business cards!

However, let's assume you're right. I would say "Here's my card. You can reach me at the first/second/third number".

 

[Aamir Tariq]

See above. I hope that person doesn't expect to be successful in whatever business they're in, if they're that disorganised with their business cards!

However, let's assume you're right. I would say "Here's my card. You can reach me at the first/second/third number".

You are absolutely right, however, it has become a common practice in Pakistan among those who run low-profile businesses like those who are shop keepers or local vendors, they can't afford to spend money on printing fresh cards, so they just let their clients know which of those numbers are active and non-active.

 

[Rover_KE]

Why don't they just cross out/delete/strike through the non-active numbers?

 

[jutfrank]

I'd use only on.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

When you give someone your contact number and ask him or her to contact you at that number how would you ask him or her to contact you at the same number?

Here is my business card. You can call/contact/reach me at this number.

Kindly let me know which combination is more common and natural among native speakers.

Regards,
Aamir the Global Citizen

Call, contact, and reach are all fine. We call them business cards. Only at is correct. It's fine to hand someone a business card and say "You can call me at this number."

 

[Rover_KE]

Only at is correct.

In BE, 'on' is just fine.

 

[Aamir Tariq]

Why don't they just cross out/delete/strike through the non-active numbers?

Very good question indeed but quite irrelevant to the main topic. But anyway, I would answer that. Some of them do strike through the non-active numbers but most of them don't bother, they are too lazy to do that.

 

[GoesStation]

In BE, 'on' is just fine.

I find myself using and hearing "on" more and more often in AmE.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Very good question, indeed​, but quite irrelevant to the main topic. But anyway, I'll (I will) answer that. Some of them do strike through the non-active numbers, but most of them don't bother. They are too lazy to do that. ​I am, too!

Native English speakers often misuse and abuse the word "would." Most commonly, people answer questions by saying "I would say . . . ." (Or worse, "So, I would say . . . .):

You: "What causes inflation?"

Me: "So, I would say that the chief causes are . . . ."​

Sometimes it's a nervous tic, and sometime it's a way of stalling while thinking up a good answer. It's better to skip the preamble and just say what you're saying. We don't care what people would say. We care what they do say: "The chief causes are . . . ."

 

[jutfrank]

Sometimes it's a nervous tic, and sometime it's a way of stalling while thinking up a good answer.

I would say it's more of a way of distancing yourself from what you say. There are several reasons why people might do this. A common reason is to show that you are stating opinion rather than fact. And sometimes it is a way of respectfully softening disagreement with what somebody has said.

It's better to skip the preamble and just say what you're saying. We don't care what people would say. We care what they do say: "The chief causes are . . . ."

Evidently, we do care about the way people say things, too.

 

[GoesStation]

I would agree that I've used would​ perfectly well in this sentence.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I would say it's more of a way of distancing yourself from what you say. There are several reasons why people might do this. A common reason is to show that you are stating opinion rather than fact.

I'm not convinced that that's why people do it. After all, it's usually clear whether someone is sharing opinions or fact, and we have plenty of more direct ways of making it clear when needed:

- I think . . . .
- In my opinion . . . .
- It seems to me that . . . .
- I've observed that . . . .

And sometimes it is a way of respectfully softening disagreement with what somebody has said.

I never hear "I would say" that way. Indirectness isn't polite, it's just indirect. (Which can be annoying - not polite at all.) We have plenty of direct ways of politely disagreeing:

- You make some good points, but . . . .
- I understand how you might think that, but . . . .
- You're certainly in good company with that, but . . . .
- I used to think that, too. I changed my mind because . . . .
- I've wondered about that, myself. The problem I run into is that . . . .

Evidently, we do care about the way people say things, too.

Exactly![/QUOTE]

Whenever I hear someone start with "I'd like to thank everyone . . . " I always expect them to finish with, ". . . but I can't!"

 

[Tdol]

I find myself using and hearing "on" more and more often in AmE.

Obviously, improvements are being made across the pond. Sort out cell phone and soccer next. :lol:

 

[Aamir Tariq]

Native English speakers often misuse and abuse the word "would." Most commonly, people answer questions by saying "I would say . . . ." (Or worse, "So, I would say . . . .):

You: "What causes inflation?"

Me: "So, I would say that the chief causes are . . . ."​

Sometimes it's a nervous tic, and sometime it's a way of stalling while thinking up a good answer. It's better to skip the preamble and just say what you're saying. We don't care what people would say. We care what they do say: "The chief causes are . . . ."

First of all, thank you very much for not only correcting the mistakes I made in my question but also for expanding your answer by giving extra bit of detail about "would" and sharing your most valuable thoughts. However, the additional phrase you added in the end "They are too lazy to do that. ​I am, too!" made me laugh a lot. I wish I had a business of my own, even a small one, and I wish I could be lazy as well and I had some time to relax. Anyway thanks again for making me laugh.

 

[jutfrank]

Obviously, improvements are being made across the pond. Sort out cell phone and soccer next. :lol:

For the sake of argument -- At least cell phone is better than mobile phone. 'Mobile'? Maybe that was impressive once but in this day and age? And soccer is a good, proper British word, what what? (I have more of an issue with the U.S. use of football -- I mean, the ball barely ever touches the foot!)

 

[Aamir Tariq]

For the sake of argument -- At least cell phone is better than mobile phone. 'Mobile'? Maybe that was impressive once but in this day and age? And soccer is a good, proper British word, what what? (I have more of an issue with the U.S. use of football -- I mean, the ball barely ever touches the foot!)

Yeah, exactly and that's what confused me a lot when I started learning English and found no feet were actually involved in American football and still it was called football.