Yep I feel that your statement implies that the road way was specified to be 7.5m wide (though you could argue that if that was what you were saying you would have said "nominally 7.5m" or "specified at 7.5m". His though asserts that the carriageway has been measured as being 7.5m. Though you could then argue that you would have to specify the point(s) where it was measured as being that dimension.

While I agree that solicitors make their money reading between the lines even his statement could be shot down in flames IMHO. If there was some legal case being answered they could still ask "at what point(s) was the carriageway measured as being 7.5m wide?"

If it was me I'd be asking what length and at what intervals of carriageway did you measure? But then I know I'm pedantic.

But then again it does depend on the reason for the writing of the report. Does the reason indicate a level of accuracy required in measurements and subsequent reporting?

All of your carriageway are belong to us.

😯

fu(k it you should have just said "it's <……………………..> this wide", then stick your fingers up and fart in his direction.

both sentences have the same credibility, except one is using more words than necessary – you see this in essay's where it must be a min of three million gazillion words long, on how to cross the road.. if the facts can be presented in a clear legible format of minimal discription, then that's all that's needed.

i blame women, they talk so much the world thinks you need more words to explain something – Q"how you feeling?" man= alright, women= well im…………………………………………………

next time you need to write a bone report stick in 20fig grid references!

Note that Sui is a fluffer from Dorking, so may not be fully qualified to answer your question…

You have materially changed your OP! what was carriage ways is has become carriageway is.

Make your mind up – are you just changing things for the sake of it?
😉

You are correct.

Your boss is wrong – the carriage way doesn't measure anything, a man or possibly a woman with a tape measure or some such device, measured the carriage way. The carriage way IS 7.5 metres wide. The fact that you aren't just guessing that is implicit.

Your version is clearer. But one thing I have learned about bosses is that they rarely if ever admit to being wrong, so don't sweat it. You now know you are smarter than your boss, you can use that !

Oh yeah and it's a road.

Yep I feel that your statement implies that the road way was specified to be 7.5m wide (though you could argue that if that was what you were saying you would have said "nominally 7.5m" or "specified at 7.5m".

No. "The carriageway is 7.5m wide" means that the carriageway is 7.5m wide. It doesn't mean it was specified at 7.5m wide, will be 7.5m wide, should be 7.5m wide, was 7.5m wide or anything else. It means there is a carriageway, it exists now and the person writing the report knows that that carriageway is 7.5m wide.

What other material/facts is there to suggest anything else? Convince me otherwise!

Your version is clearer

It is now he has changed it, making most of the first page of posts irrelevant!

thebunk – Member
Note that Sui is a fluffer from Dorking, so may not be fully qualified to answer your question…

busted 😳

yeah but when asked how big i say <………………………………> this big not, it measured… 🙂

maybe;

"the carriageway was measured and is 7.5m wide"

at least shows you bothered to go there with a tapemeasure, pigeon step it or whatever?

Sui – That's so far from the mark that it is not even funny

I think your boss is being pedantic – your version is easily understood.

Had a boss once who changed a couple of things in a report I did for the organisation's Board and then replaced my name as the author of the report to his – what a twunt!

How about "I'm sure the carriageway is 7.5m wide, because I've checked and everything, alright?"?

Clear, technical, precise and with a contemporary feel. 🙂

Philby
Had a boss once who changed a couple of things in a report I did for the organisation's Board and then replaced my name as the author of the report to his

Blunt??

or am I being overly sensitive?

You're being overly sensitive, dear. Have a cuppa and try and relax 😀

If you've ever bought a piece of 2"x1" timber you will know that it is never 2"x1". That's the nominal sze, and it's always less than that in real life.

If I was told that it measured 2" in width, I would have reason to believe that.

"The carriageway is 7.5 metres wide." has been changed to "The carriageway measures 7.5 metres in width." Are they not both a clear and understandable statement of fact?

I think your's is a statement of an actual fact for which you cannot be certain of, the amended version adds a human element to the statment that could imply you might be wrong (you might have in accurately measured it but it could be measured again and be 7.6). He has entered a caveat that YOU measured it to be 7.5m and not that it IS 7.5m
I would change it again after re-measuring, this time three separate sections and averaging the result and stating that over X meters, the carriageway measured 7.75m on average for example. But I suppose this depends on what was asked of you!

The use of the term wide suggests that the carriageway is "wide" as opposed to narrow.
The width is quantifiable.
For instance you could create a cycle lane half a metre wide.