Hi everybody! Which one of the belows is correct? There are many old buildings dating back 1700s in London OR There are many buildings in London dating back 1700s. You can find fancier service at us at affordable prices than that at the others OR You can find fancier service at affordable prices than that at the others at us ALSO How can I place "at affordable prices" better in the sentence? Thanks in advance
There are many buildings in London dating back to the 1700s. The other is correct but clumsy. None of the second example are correct: You can get a fancier service at more affordable prices with us.
'the other' london sentence is not correct, because it also has to have 'to the' inserted, to make any sense... the second example given by yokone is ok, but needs a comma after 'prices'...
The first sentence, old seems to be unneeded. Since there can't be new buildings dating back to the 1700's. I am here to refresh my memory on the topic(punctuation), so most of my posts will be more along the line of pointing out a problem and seeing if I am reading it right.
However there are many old buildings in London that don't date back to the 1700s. Some old buildings although not many date back to before the 1700s. It would depend on the rest of the piece whether it was needed. The OP seems to be doing a building design course of some description it could be relevant. Old could refer to the state of the building - some buildings have been totally revamped like the dock buildings - they do date back to the 1800s but I wouldn't call them old either.
If I was writing fiction sure old is redundant. However I get impression from Yokone's previous posts this is from a civil engineering or building course or something similar. Although a building may have been originally built in the 1700s it may not have all its original features, had major structural changes etc. Some are original some are not. I worked as an archaeologist in the UK - 1700s for me is a period property - in the grand scheme of things not that old. I have a building in my town dating back to 1100. 1700 is mostly the oldest in London (things like the Tower being notable exceptions) because of 1666 and it was redesigned after that. For me 1750 and before is when I think of a building as old. 1750 and after is period, Georgian, Victorian, Edwardian etc not really 'old' I could be wrong but depends on what Yokone is writing and what the context is whether I would see it as entirely redundant. When I was writing for those working with Romans and Anglo Saxons I would personally have specified that a 1700s building was old. Knowing they would not see it that way.
Neither. "There are many buildings dating back to the 1700s in London." or "There are many buildings in London dating back to the 1700s." Both are grammatical, but I think the second is clearer because it doesn't lead the reader onto false tracks of the "man with a wooden leg named Smith" type. Neither. "us" is not a place, so you can't have "at us" (similarly with "at the others"). You seem to be telling us that the competition has affordable prices too (they might have, but I'm not sure you want to tell us that), and "fancier service" suggests that the differences are superficial. The sentence needs a complete rework. Maybe "You will get better service at better prices with us than anywhere else."
