Search results for 'tag:Nouns tag:Business English' matching tags 'Nouns' and 'Business English'

Re: HELP ME!! Can someone help me review my essay?

Grammar Geek — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 05:38:06 GMT

Hi Sharon, and welcome to the forums.

I'm sorry to say that your essay is ridded with serious grammatical errors, and before you worry about summaries, etc., you should make sure you have corrected those errors. I'm afraid that people won't take your ideas seriously if you don't present them using standard business English.

Because of the market competition is big and the price rise. This is a fragment, not a complete sentence.

Dunkin Donuts should has a better quality to keep the old customers and attract some new customers. should have

If we have a better quality and service, I believe our company profit will increase. quality and service are not count nouns, and should not have an article

Executive Summary

Dunkin Donuts is the international coffee and baked goods chain. There are other international coffee and baked good chains, aren't there? Use "a" instead of "the."

They are serving more than 3 million customers per day. Technically okay, but "They serve" is more common.

Dunkin Donuts sells 52 different donuts and more than a dozen coffee beverages. It also sells bagels, breakfast sandwiches and other baked goods. Okay

Because we have continuously received complaints for our product quality from the customers and this will affect our profit. A fragment again. complaints about. Not continuously, but perhaps frequently. What is the "this" -- the compliants? Use profits, instead of profit.

Therefore, we should find out the problems and improve it. Find out what the problems are and eliminate them

Also, it can increase our profit. What will? Why is this "also"? profits.

***

I've only done the first part, but you can see there is an error in just about every sentence. Please go back and rework this. Is this an assignment for a business class, or is this an actual report that you, as a Dunkin Donuts employee, want to make to senior management?

Re: Increases Engagement

Clive — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 05:54:21 GMT

Hi,

Why Focus on Outcomes?

1.Promotes accountability The idea here is that employees need to take responsibility for their work. They need to answer for it if the task is not successful. If there is no accountavbility, everyone will just say 'It's not my fault'.

2.Increases engagement 'Engagement' refers to the degree that people are involved with and interested in their tasks.

*Legal,regulatory,compliance,health&safety steps are exceptions!(Some steps can't be ignored) If you comply with a law or regulation, you obey it by taking the appropriate actions. 'Compliance' is the noun form.

This is about the concetp of "outcome" in business English.The basic concept is don't ask employees to follow steps that you set.Because everyone has different approach because of differnet talents.Set steps will limit the approach,so,just give "outcome".To achieve the outcome and don't ask how they achieve.

My question is,I don't know the meanings of "accountability","engagement","compliance" here.

I believe they have different meanings in business English.

Can sb give some examples about these vocubulary? The company president said to the production manager, 'You can delegate this work to your staff, but I'm going to hold you accountable. If there are any problems, I will talk to you, not to your staff.The accountability is yours.'

Nobody in that department cares about their work. They all go home early. There is no engagement with their work.'

The company dumped toxic waste into the river. They were fined $10,000 for lack of compliance with environmental legislation.

Best wishes, Clive

Do/will Standard AE and BE speakers adapt their usage?

milky — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:11:05 GMT

Here is a piece of advice for Indians wanting to work in or with European business circles:

Language

"You will find that there are differences in structure and usage between Indian English and "European business English".

The structure of sentences is a little different. The adjectives often come after the noun.

Take these differences in stride, and try to adapt your style of speaking and writing to the people you're doing business with. It is much more effective to communicate in the way the majority of people are comfortable with than to try to change things to the style you may be more used to."

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2006/06/05/stories/2006060500440900.htm

Do you think that native AE and BE speakers, when working in or with Indian English speaking business circles in India, should also adapt their usage to suit that context?

Re: reimbursement form again

Clive — Sun, 16 Apr 2006 13:59:14 GMT

Hi Keron,

I think it a good addition to our accounting system as it can serve as an audit and expenditure control device.

"I think it a good addition to.........."
Is it a structure?Could anyone explain it to me?

Much more normal in business English would be 'I think it is (or 'will be') a good addition . . . '. However, it's also correct as written. It's like saying 'I think him a liar'. You can consider that either 'is/will be' is omitted, or else that it's a form of apposition where the two nouns are placed together.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: When to use 'is' and 'are' has caused an argument in the office

Casi — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:08:04 GMT

But. . . both you and your boss are correct. Consider,

(A) My family (my dad, mom, and bother) are here with me. (non-collective noun)
(B) My family (the group) is here with me. (collective noun)

(C) British Coal, they who own and run the company, are. . .
(D) British Coal, the company, is. . .

With regards to which of the two is more common in Business English, well, it would be the latter, D , but that's not to say D is the correct choice, or should be taken as such.

Choice C is worthy of defence, not because it's what tradition in such and such an area prescribes, but for what it contributes to Business. The non-collective us(ag)e 'British Coal are' expresses a human referent; i.e., they who own, run, and work for the company, whereas the collective us(ag)e 'British Coal is' does away with the human connection; i.e., British Coal is an "it", a thing.

We are our language.

In today's world, we complain about being treated as "it", as a number, and yet, ironically enough it's OK to defend the source of that problem by using majority rules as a defence. We're told we should say, "British Coal is" because a company is a thing, and we're told we shouldn't say, "British Coal are" because a company, being a thing, is not human. Or is it?

The way in which we use language, as you know, expresses our perception of the world around us. Change the word order in the world of language and look how it filters through to the order of importance in the human world. We are our language, and for that reason C is more than worthy of defence, specifically for the sake of the semantics it houses.

We could learn a thing or two from your boss' perception because 'he' seems to have a panoramic view: What's so odd about viewing a company that's run by people as people who run a company? The latter is not only more direct, it places what's most important first, and the very instant the most important thing is moved to the back, and added to 'by'--see ya--is the very instant we, its referent, become secondary, and no longer of primary importance--aside from a primary number.

Asking whether 'British Coal' or any other company name, for that matter, should be viewed as a singular noun or as a plural noun serves only to perpetuate the erroneous assumption that there's actually a correct answer when it comes to semantic interpretation. Argue if you will, but there's really no need to hash it out. The solution is always in the question: You and your boss are correct. It's your perceptions that differ.

Keep the human connection. Vote C. "British Coal are. . . "

P.S. In Japan, what citizens see as 'green'--or is it 'blue'?--we here in North America see as 'blue'--or is it 'green'?. On more than one occasion, you might hear people talking about the traffic lights:

Max from the USA: It's blue, isn't it?
Pat from Canada: Well, it's kind of an aqua-green.
Yuki from Japan: It's green.

Not to mention, ask any school-aged child in Japan what colour the sun is, and they'll tell you it's red. Perceptions will differ.

Re: Receipt vs receiving

Raul — Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:05:52 GMT

Close to it Mike. In fact, "receipt" means "the act of receiving" or "the fact of being received". As you see, the latter applies to the sentence under discussion. Unfortunately, there is no similar word for "sending". In business English, you could sound more especific if you use "delivery" instead of sending:

Delivery does not guarantee receipt.

The ing-form used to be divided into "present participle" (more like a verb or adjective) and "gerund" (more like a noun). Examples:

I stayed laying on my bed and watching TV. (present participle)
Smoking is bad for our health. (gerund)

Some grammarians question these terms and they prefer to use "ing-form" instead because they argue that such distinction is not really that simple.