inclusive of meals, including meals

firee818

Senior Member
Chinese
Any difference in meaning between the following two sentences?

Q. How much do we have to pay to join the excursion?
(A1). It will be RM100 inclusive (adjective) of meals.
(A2). It will be RM100 including (preposition) meals.

Why we need to use adjective for 'include' in sentence (A1), is it used to describe RM100 (noun)?

Thank you
 
  • Copyright

    Senior Member
    American English
    What I would do:

    (A1). It will be RM100, inclusive of meals.
    (A2). It will be RM100, which includes meals.

    I think "including" here will make some readers stop and think ... it's best to offer a terms-and-conditions statement that is easily understood at first reading. I would go so far as to say "including" is not correct, but it's possible that it's not correct just for me. :)
     

    Copyright

    Senior Member
    American English
    I don't personally find it strange, but my comments are likely colored by an informal survey I did several years ago when I was checking various statements for understandability in terms and conditions statements. I found that the "including" version was occasionally being interpreted as "plus," while "inclusive" and "which includes" didn't have the problem.

    This was in Hong Kong with fairly fluent non-native Englsh speakers. It obviously changed my opinion of "including" in this sort of statement, and when I noticed the OP was Chinese, I guess I was reminded of that.

    My apologies for any confusion.
     

    panjandrum

    Lapsed Moderator
    English-Ireland (top end)
    I don't personally find it strange, but my comments are likely colored by an informal survey I did several years ago when I was checking various statements for understandability in terms and conditions statements. I found that the "including" version was occasionally being interpreted as "plus," while "inclusive" and "which includes" didn't have the problem.
    ...
    There's no accounting for the capacity of English to be misunderstood - or differently interpreted :)
    Thanks.
     

    Copyright

    Senior Member
    American English
    Just plain English. (Which is probably not good for a copywriter.)
    Sometimes word choices are affected by the same word in the same ad having another meaning.

    Enjoy exclusive benefits.
    Price is $100, exclusive of taxes and surcharges.


    Understandable for many people, but possibly confusing for others. And if I exclude "exclusive," I generally do away with "inclusive, which is another word with a separate meaning (despite my acceptance of "inclusive" in post 2, where it was by itself).

    For good-but-not-native English speakers, I try to use expressions that are easy to interpret, so "inclusive" and "exclusive" (except for "exclusive benefits") are usually replaced by "included" and "not included").

    Price includes all taxes and surcharges.
    Price does not include taxes and surcharges.

    Price is RM100 and includes meals.
    Price is RM100 and does not include meals.


    This approach may even help native English speakers, considering the state of English language learning these days. And these expressions most often appear in fine-print terms and conditions, which people don't like reading anyway, so anything you can do to replace cobblestones with rubberized asphalt is good. I want people to understand what they're being given or denied. Really.

    But I agree that "Price is RM100, including meals" is the way I grew up reading it -- except for the RM part -- so maybe I'll give it another try. I do hang around here to get other perspectives. ;)
     
    Last edited:

    Copyright

    Senior Member
    American English
    Malaysian ringgit, according to Wikipedia. I had to look it up - to me, "RM" in this context is Reichsmark. :)
    Thanks ... I knew because I've been to Penang many times, where they have large Indian and Chinese populations -- along with some of the best food in the world for very few RM. :)
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top