Results 1 to 4 of 4
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Armenian
      • Home Country:
      • Iran
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Nov 2002
    • Posts: 2,554
    #1

    not your employee for you to

    Are these sentences correct with the given meanings:

    1-I am not your employee for you to give me orders.
    Meaning: I am not your employee and therefore you can't give me orders.

    1 could also mean: I am your employee but with the purpose of receiving orders from you.


    2-They had not opened the door for me to see what was going on inside the office.

    Meaning: They had not opened the door and therefore I could not see what was going on inside the office.

    2 could mean: They had opened the door but it wasn't for me to see what was going on inside the office.

    Gratefully,
    Navi.

  1. probus's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Canada
      • Current Location:
      • Canada

    • Join Date: Jan 2011
    • Posts: 3,458
    #2

    Re: not your employee for you to

    All the sentences are grammatically correct.

    2-They had not opened the door for me to see what was going on inside the office.

    Meaning: They had not opened the door and therefore I could not see what was going on inside the office.

    2 could mean: They had opened the door but it wasn't for me to see what was going on inside the office.

    Both meanings are possible and the sentence is plausible. A careful speaker would probably say "to allow me to see" in the first case and "wasn't in order for me to see" in the second.

    1-I am not your employee for you to give me orders.
    Meaning: I am not your employee and therefore you can't give me orders.

    1 could also mean: I am your employee but with the purpose of receiving orders from you.

    This pair of choices is much less plausible. I think there is little point in discussing the possible meanings here. Clearly one can give one's employees orders. Their choice is to comply or quit, not to debate semantics.
    Last edited by probus; 06-Nov-2013 at 05:54.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Armenian
      • Home Country:
      • Iran
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Nov 2002
    • Posts: 2,554
    #3

    Re: not your employee for you to

    Thank you very much Probus.

    So if I understand correctly,

    1-I am not your employee for you to give me orders.

    can have only one meaning. Am I correct?

    Gratefully,
    Navi.

  2. MikeNewYork's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Nov 2002
    • Posts: 24,983
    #4

    Re: not your employee for you to

    Quote Originally Posted by navi tasan View Post
    Thank you very much Probus.

    So if I understand correctly,

    1-I am not your employee for you to give me orders.

    can have only one meaning. Am I correct?

    Gratefully,
    Navi.
    At best, it is a very strange sentence. The only way it makes any sense, as Probus has suggested, is that the person doesn't work for the person giving the orders.

Similar Threads

  1. employee
    By Abstract Idea in forum Pronunciation and Phonetics
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 11-Aug-2009, 20:56
  2. [General] employee
    By anayve in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 22-Aug-2008, 11:14
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-Aug-2008, 22:59
  4. employee
    By Unregistered in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-Oct-2007, 05:40
  5. challenging employee
    By Curious Cat in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 17-Nov-2005, 14:18

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •