You've missed one loop!

[zaffy]

Sometimes people are unaware they're not wearing their belt right, that is, they missed a loop while putting the belt on. Say I noticed that and tell my colleague about that. Does this work? Do I use the present perfect or simple past?

This is what I would say in Polish:
John, you've missed one/a loop.
John, you missed one/a loop.

Would you mention the belt?

 

[owlman5]

No, I wouldn't. You missed a loop also sounds sensible and ordinary in English. I would probably point at the listener's belt as I made the remark.

 

[zaffy]

Any chance of saying this?

John, your belt misses a loop.

 

[owlman5]

No. That version sounds very unlikely and weird to me.

 

[Enquiring Mind]

You missed a loop works. You can use either tense.
Present perfect: the speaker is in a present-time frame of mind. You've missed a loop! I can see (now) that you haven't put your belt on properly. Your belt isn't on properly.
Past simple: the speaker is thinking about the moment in the past when you put the belt on. You missed a loop (when you were putting your belt on)!

 

[zaffy]

You missed a loop also sounds sensible and ordinary in English

You missed a loop works.

And does it sound unnatural with 'one'?

You missed one loop.

 

[Enquiring Mind]

Yes (in the context). But since "a" can also mean "one", "a" would normally be enough to convey the meaning.

a1 /ə; when stressed eɪ/ indefinite article. [usually before count nouns]

1. one: a friend of mine; a month ago. (WR)

 

[owlman5]

And does it sound unnatural with 'one'?

You missed one loop.

One loop makes sense, but a loop sounds more natural. If somebody missed two or more loops, then using a number before loops would make sense: You missed two loops. Of course, somebody who missed several loops in an attempt to dress himself might be so distracted or impaired that any comment would be pointless and ineffective...

 

[zaffy]

And how would you describe a repeated action? Say somoeone is very messy and they almost always don't wear their belt properly.

A: Have you noticed Tom's jeans are always dirty?
B: Yeah, and he always misses a loop.

I guess that utterance needs mentioning the belt. How would you put it?

 

[owlman5]

I guess that utterance needs mentioning the belt. How would you put it?

He always misses a loop when he puts his belt on.

 

[Edinburgher]

If someone said "You missed a loop" to me out of the blue, I would have no idea what they meant.
So yes, they would absolutely have to mention the belt. Pointing at the belt (but not at the missed loop in question) would be rather pointless (pun not originally intended) because I couldn't possibly see the loop. That's because if I had mis-threaded my belt, the missed loop(s) would be out of my field of vision, since otherwise I would have been watching what I was doing: there'd be no way I'd miss a loop in my anterior semicircle.

 

[zaffy]

So yes, they would absolutely have to mention the belt.

So how would you put the example in #1?

 

[Edinburgher]

You skipped/missed a loop when you put your belt on.

 

[Myridon]

I generally call them "belt loops" not just "loops" so I'd say "You skipped a belt loop."

 

[zaffy]

You skipped/missed a loop when you put your belt on.

Why not ".... when you were putting your belt on"? Non natives are taught to use the past continuous for an activity during which something happened.

 

[heypresto]

Why not ".... when you were putting your belt on"?

This is going off topic, but either 'put' or 'were putting' are fine here. I would naturally say 'put' in this context.

 

[Edinburgher]

Why not ".... when you were putting your belt on"?

You can certainly say that too, and indeed it might be better in a learning context. I was treating it as an action that takes so little time that it is not worth thinking of it as an activity with significant duration.

 

[Florentia52]

“You missed a belt loop” is clear and concise. There’s no need to specify the process during which the loop was missed.

 

[zaffy]

“You missed a belt loop” is clear and concise.

I generally call them "belt loops" not just "loops" so I'd say "You skipped a belt loop."

But isn't that ambiguos? I guess a "belt loop" might refer to the loop on the right, which is part of the belt. Is the loop on the left a 'belt loop' as well?

 

[Florentia52]

While the loop on the belt that secures the free end might be called a “belt loop” in the industry, most AE speakers, at least, wouldn’t call it that. For all practical purposes, the belt loops are unambiguously the loops on the pants.

 

[Myridon]

Yes. The thing on the right that is integral to the belt basically has no name for me. It never seems to come up in conversation.

 

[zaffy]

And would "omit" work?

You omitted a belt loop.

 

[Roxxxannne]

I've never heard an American use 'omit' in a sentence other than in a formal or academic context like "Many historians omit the importance of the [X people] in the introduction of such-and-such-a-cultural-phenomenon to [Y place] in the Nth century BCE." Then, of course, the author goes on to make up for earlier scholars' omission in either excruciating or fascinating detail.

PS typo: it's omitted not omited.

 

[zaffy]

I've never heard an American use 'omit' in a sentence other than in a formal or academic context

I see. But it does make sense, right?

 

[Roxxxannne]

Yes, but I doubt anyone would say it in the belt-loop context. If an American speaker said it, it would sound as though they were for some reason practicing a new vocabulary word.

 

[abluter]

Zaffy, your suggestion in post#3 "your belt misses a loop" sounds pretty good to me, making the rather accurate suggestion that the belt is a sort of creature (snake?) whose role is to creep though all the loops in turn. But I would refine it by putting it in the perfect tense, "Your belt has missed a loop", because the belt has done its creeping and is now (faultily) at rest.