worst city for

[navi tasan]

Are these sentences correct:

1-Our city is the worst city for bad transportation.
2-Our city is the worst city for transportation.

3-Our city is the best city for good transportation.
4-Our city is the best city for transportation.

 

[Rover_KE]

They might be grammatically correct, but they don't tell us much.

'Mancaster has the worst transportation system in the UK.'

'Bormungham is the best city for transportation in Alabama - arguably in the entire USA.'

'The worst city in the world for transportation is Spleczinski.'

Rover

'

 

[navi tasan]

Thanks a lot Rover.

I did not want to mention a specific city.

Would you say:

a-'The worst city in the world for bad transportation is Spleczinski.'
is correct?

I have just added a "bad" to your last sentence.

 

[5jj]

The 'bad' is unnecessary - and you have mentioned a specific city.

 

[Tdol]

a-'The worst city in the world for bad transportation is Spleczinski.'

It's not incorrect, and with more context, it might work:

The worst city in the world for good transportation is London.

It tries to have an advanced transportation system and has the infrastructure and elements in place, but they are run in a very poor way. However, it's better than the cities that have bad transportation- little or no infrastructure, etc.

 

[5jj]

It's not incorrect, and with more context, it might work:

The worst city in the world for good transportation is London.

OK, but wouldn't you agree that 'bad' is unnecessary in navi's sentence. If it is the worst city for transportation, then it must be the worst city for bad transportation?

 

[SoothingDave]

Wouldn't the worst city for bad transportation, actually be good? Double negatives.

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you all.

What SoothingDave says is the problem I had with the sentence.


A-It is a bad city for transportation.
(This makes sense)


B-It is a bad city for good transportation.
(This makes sense)

C-It is a bad city for bad transportation.
What is this saying? If you want "bad transformation" then it is a bad city?

The problem is that in some other contexts, the same structure makes sense (I think):

D-It is a bad city for bad weather.

Would you say:

E-It is a bad city for weather.

 

[5jj]

C-It is a bad city for bad transportation.
What is this saying? If you want "bad transportation" then it is a bad city?
That's what it appears to be saying. If we follow SoothingDave's logic (which I like), then it suggests that the transportation is good. It is basically a bad sentence.

D-It is a bad city for bad weather.
Don't analyse this too much. In conversation we might hear it. We know that it means we need thermal underwear and/or a strong umbrella if we go there.

Would you say: E- It is a bad city for weather. I wouldn't (I think), but I can imagine it being said.

5

 

[Tdol]

OK, but wouldn't you agree that 'bad' is unnecessary in navi's sentence. If it is the worst city for transportation, then it must be the worst city for bad transportation?

Yes- it's not a natural sentence. In my defence, I was posting late at night and created an unnecessary context to accommodate the implausible as you do. After 1am, it is possible to envisage the worst city for good transport and the worst one for bad transport

;-)