a restricted number of...

GandalfMB

Senior Member
Bulgarian - Yellow Beach
Hello,
in everyday English, is it normal to say "After WWI, Germany was allowed to have a restricted number troops, air crafts, armored vehicles,etc". I apologize for using Germany in my example and I sincerely hope that some people will not be offended. I just couldn't think of anything else. No offense. Can we say "A restricted number of something"?


Thank you
 
  • GandalfMB

    Senior Member
    Bulgarian - Yellow Beach
    Thank you both. I used "restricted", not because it sounds better to me, but because I follow definitions. According to MacMillan, Oxford, etc, it should be possible. The dictionary is just a dictionary.
     

    Loob

    Senior Member
    English UK
    I can see where Glen's coming from, but actually, in the original context, "a restricted number" doesn't sound strange to me.
     

    GandalfMB

    Senior Member
    Bulgarian - Yellow Beach
    What do you mean Loob? Actually, is there any rule that prevents me from using "restricted number" in this sentence? I understand that it sounds bad, but I just want to know. When you are a learner and people tell you "That's correct/wrong" but they can't tell you why, it is a bit confusing :).

    Thank you :)
     
    Hi Gandalf,

    You asked, in the OP
    in everyday English, is it normal to say
    and got some answers including mine. These answers were essentially about frequently used constructions, those which seem to 'go' better than others (style, clarity, etc.).

    Your new question is (post #14, in full, pasted at the end)
    Actually, is there any rule that prevents me from using "restricted number" in this sentence?
    No, there is not. I should have said so, earlier. My apologies.

    As to your last sentence, (post #14)
    When you are a learner and people tell you "That's correct/wrong" but they can't tell you why, it is a bit confusing :).
    First, upon glancing at earlier posts, I see several of us, including me, did not say you were wrong. We were talking about better or 'happier' constructions, and more commonly used ones ('normal' in your terms).

    Yes, it's a challenge to learn both a) what's in 'the rules and b) what "sounds good"--happy or felicitous constructions that go beyond "doesn't offend the basic rules of usage."

    I think now you've heard input on both issues. I'm sorry if 'doesn't violate the rules' wasn't made clear to you earlier. What you do with native speaker's opinions and impressions (regarding point b), above) is up to you. I hope this clarifies things, but if you have any questions, please ask.

    Your contributions are welcome by us forum members, and those involving good, probing questions are especially appreciated. :)

    ===
    Gandalph, post #14, in full


    What do you mean Loob? Actually, is there any rule that prevents me from using "restricted number" in this sentence? I understand that it sounds bad, but I just want to know. When you are a learner and people tell you "That's correct/wrong" but they can't tell you why, it is a bit confusing :).
     

    GandalfMB

    Senior Member
    Bulgarian - Yellow Beach
    Hello, bennymix,
    I appreciate and respect everyone's opinions. Thank you all for your options, opinions, time and help :). I am a little surprised that "a restricted range of..." sounds right and number is correct, but it doesn't. I didn't mean to offend anyone by asking questions :(. If I had known the answer, I never would have posted a new thread. Thank you again and I sincerely hope that nobody's angry. Please, accept my apologies.
     
    Last edited:
    < Previous | Next >
    Top