Are these sentences natural? March 8

[musicgold]

Hi,

Are the following sentences natural to a native ear?

1. My numbers have reconciled to theirs.

2. I am not able to reconcile to the announced number.

3. Does I calling you, and not my boss, offends you anyway?

Thanks,
MG

 

[bhaisahab]

Hi,

Are the following sentences natural to a native ear?

1. My numbers have reconciled to theirs.

2. I am not able to reconcile to the announced number.

3. Does I calling you, and not my boss, offends you anyway?

Thanks,
MG

No, the first two are unnatural and the third one is wrong.

 

[billmcd]

Hi,

Are the following sentences natural to a native ear?

1. My numbers have reconciled to theirs. No. Preference #1, "My numbers have been reconciled with theirs." OR #2, "My numbers are reconciled with theirs."

2. I am not able to reconcile with [STRIKE]to[/STRIKE] the announced (?) number. How about "...the number provided".

3. Does [STRIKE]I [/STRIKE] my calling you, [STRIKE]and not [/STRIKE] rather than my boss, offend[STRIKE]s[/STRIKE] you? [STRIKE]anyway?

[/STRIKE]Thanks,
MG

b.

 

[spongie]

Does me calling you, rather than my boss, offends you? - is it also correct?

 

[billmcd]

Does me calling you, rather than my boss, [STRIKE]offends[/STRIKE] offend you? - is it also correct?

Yes, with "offend".

 

[musicgold]

3. Does I my calling you, and not rather than my boss, offends you? anyway?.

I feel that if we use 'my calling' in the phase clause, then we should use 'my boss' ' in the second clause. I am trying to match a gerund phrase with another. Is that right?

 

[bhaisahab]

3. Does I my calling you, rather than my boss, offend you?
This is correct grammatically.

 

[Barb_D]

There is ambiguity in the sentence. Am I calling you instead of calling my boss? Or am I calling you instead of my boss being the person to call you? In context, there would not be ambiguity - the person hearing it would know the situation and understand what was being said, but without context, I don't know.

 

[musicgold]

There is ambiguity in the sentence. Am I calling you instead of calling my boss? Or am I calling you instead of my boss being the person to call you?

I called a person and the person said where my boss was. He wanted to know why my boss didn't call him. That is why I asked that question.
I am confused because, I feel "my boss' calling" (an apostrophe after boss) parallels with "my calling" better than does "my boss calling"

 

[Barb_D]

You're right - "my boss's calling" is parallel to "my calling."

However your sentence could be understood to read "instead of my boss being the person to call you."