[Grammar] Trust and hope

[aristotle2155]

Is the following statement grammatically correct:

"Trust you all are safe and practicing good...."

Should it not rather be "We trust that you all are safe and...." or "We hope that you all are safe and..."

Thanks
A

 

[Rover_KE]

Please complete the unfinished sentence, and tell us who wrote it.

 

[aristotle2155]

It came in as email from the secretary of a gym club (in the context of covid-19). His full statement was:

Trust you all are safe and practicing good hygiene by regularly washing your hands adequately with soap and / or hand sanitiser.

 

[emsr2d2]

It would be understood by anyone who read it but it's grammatically incomplete. It needs to start with either "I" or "We". At the moment, it looks like an imperative.

 

[jutfrank]

It's common to omit first person subject pronouns at the beginning of sentences in conversational written texts like this.

 

[emsr2d2]

Absolutely! I should have said it's common to do this, but as an example of a grammatical sentence, it's incorrect.

 

[Tdol]

I prefer hope to trust here.


(Being British, I would write practising.)

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Good question.

We often drop the I when it's the first word of a sentence. The way we look at it, it's understood.

Think of "Thank you." It really means "I thank you." We do the same thing in other statements.

- Didn't know you felt that way.
- Hope you can make it here.
- Wonder why she said that.
- Bet you didn't expect that.
- Should've known better.

 

[Tarheel]

It came in as email from the secretary of a gym club (in the context of covid-19). His full statement was:

Trust you all are safe and practicing good hygiene by regularly washing your hands adequately with soap and / or hand sanitiser.

I think I better use the hand sanitizer, since apparently I didn't bother with the hot water.
:roll:

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

. . . His full statement was:

Trust you all are safe and practicing good hygiene by regularly washing your hands adequately with soap and / or hand sanitiser.

The only thing I'd change is the and/or. Those are speed bumps that make writers feel thorough but sound verbose.

He could have just said or. That wouldn't stop anyone from using both.

Correction: I don't think I would have said adequately, either. Who would intentionally wash inadequately? Come on.

 

[Tarheel]

The only thing I'd change is the and/or.

That's for when the person can't make up their mind.

 

[Tdol]

Who would intentionally wash inadequately?

Not doing them for long enough?

 

[emsr2d2]

Some people do need it spelled out for them.

... practising good hygiene by washing your hands regularly for 20 seconds with soap and hot water, and using hand sanitiser.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Not doing them for long enough?

For sure!

But in writing instructions, adequately seems - uh - inadequate. And wordy. We all think we're washing adequately when we wash. But are we? All of us?

So rather than using an ambiguous modifier, it would be better to add more specifics, like with hot water or for at least thirty seconds or preferably employing an autoclave.

Now excuse me while I go pick some more nits. (And then employ, adequately, an autoclave . . .)

 

[jutfrank]

The only thing I'd change is the and/or. Those are speed bumps that make writers feel thorough but sound verbose.

He could have just said or. That wouldn't stop anyone from using both.

I must say I disagree with all of that, Charlie.

The writer chose to use and/or for a reason. Using only or does not deliver the same message.