Two at best

[Silverobama]

I went downtown today and I saw a hotel with a revolving door. The door is always turning clockwise while people can walk in and enter the hotel. My friends and I are around four people and when we walked in the door, a sign saying: Only two people are allowing in the revolving door.

Is the italic sentence natural?

 

[emsr2d2]

I went downtown today and I saw a hotel with a revolving door. The door is always turning turns clockwise while so that people can walk in and enter the hotel. My friends and I are around four people I went to the hotel with three friends and when we walked in towards the door, we saw a sign saying no colon here Only two people are allowing allowed. in the revolving door.

Note my corrections above. I'm really not sure what the point of the whole thing is. Have you missed something off the end, such as "We decided to go somewhere else because we couldn't all fit in the revolving door at the same time"?

Is the italic sentence natural?

It wasn't. You needed "allowed", not "allowing". Also, signs like this are always short and to the point. They don't need to be full sentences. The sign would be on the door, or right by it, so there's no need to mention the door itself. Like signs in a lift that say "Max. 6 persons", there's no need for the extra words.

 

[emsr2d2]

@Silverobama What does your title have to do with your post?

 

[Silverobama]

@Silverobama What does your title have to do with your post?

I was trying to find a phrase for the sign and was trying to say "two at most", which means "two people are the most in the door".

I'm really not sure what the point of the whole thing is. Have you missed something off the end, such as "We decided to go somewhere else because we couldn't all fit in the revolving door at the same time"?

Yes. I should have added that part.

 

[emsr2d2]

I was trying to find a phrase for the sign and was trying to say "Two at most", which means meaning "Two people are is the most allowed in the door at one time".

OK, but you should know by now that titles should be made up of the words you're actually asking us to look at in your post.

Yes. I should have added that part.

You should indeed!

 

[emsr2d2]

@Silverobama Is this a real situation? If so, I have to say I find your reaction absolutely ridiculous. Why on earth would you be put off entering a hotel just because you couldn't get in the revolving door with all your friends at the same time?

 

[Silverobama]

@Silverobama Is this a real situation? If so, I have to say I find your reaction absolutely ridiculous. Why on earth would you be put off entering a hotel just because you couldn't get in the revolving door with all your friends at the same time?

I think you misunderstood or perhaps I haven't made myself clear. When I said "the signs says only two people allowed" I meant each time there could only be two people standing in the door because the door doesn't have enough space for more people" I think this is for safety concern.

 

[Silverobama]

It is a real situation. Please take a look at the entrance of this hotel. You can see that there's a revolving door, and when we walked into one of the compartments, we saw the sign "only two people allowed" so the guard asked us to take turns.

 

[emsr2d2]

I didn't misunderstand you at all. I entirely understand that there is a limit of two people in the revolving doors at the same time for safety reasons.
However, in post #2, I said:
Have you missed something off the end, such as "We decided to go somewhere else because we couldn't all fit in the revolving door at the same time"?
Your response to that, in post #4 was:
Yes. I should have added that part.

 

[Silverobama]

I didn't misunderstand you at all. I entirely understand that there is a limit of two people in the revolving doors at the same time for safety reasons.
However, in post #2, I said:
Have you missed something off the end, such as "We decided to go somewhere else because we couldn't all fit in the revolving door at the same time"?
Your response to that, in post #4 was:
Yes. I should have added that part.

Oh, okay. Then I misunderstood your phrase "go soemwhere else". I thought you meant "walk through another door to the hotel". We finally decided to go into the hotel by using the side entrances. There are two doors next to the revolving one.

Sorry for taking up so much of your time.

 

[emsr2d2]

OK, I see now. For info, then, a native speaker wouldn't use "go somewhere else" for the context you imagined I meant. I'd have said "decided to enter a different way" or "use a different entrance".

(I'm still surprised you didn't just go in through the revolving doors two at a time! Are the four of you glued together?)

 

[Silverobama]

(I'm still surprised you didn't just go in through the revolving doors two at a time! Are the four of you glued together?)

Well, actually we did. Sorry for not having made myself clear. I was focusing on the language question.

 

[emsr2d2]

Well, actually we did. Sorry for not having made myself clear. I was focusing on the language question.

What on earth is going on? Every time I ask you a question, you give an answer and then when I refer to that answer in a later post, you tell me that your original answer was actually untrue and you did/said/whatever something else.
You really need to tell us at the start of a thread if what you're writing is a work of fiction or something that actually happened. If it's the latter, please try to report it factually.