# There is a building of 20 stories



## sunyaer

This is a sentence I made up myself.

"There is a building of 20 stories at the corner of the street."

Is this sentence natural with the phrase "a building of 20 stories" in a "there is..." pattern?


----------



## RM1(SS)

That phrase is not natural.

"There is a 20-story building...."


----------



## sunyaer

RM1(SS) said:


> That phrase is not natural.



Is "a building of 20 stories" not a natural phrase at all in any contexts or just in the original sentence?


----------



## RM1(SS)

"Not natural" = "Not natural at all"


----------



## sunyaer

The phrase "a building of three storeys" is used quite often in by-law documents of small towns.


----------



## JustKate

Bylaws are not necessarily written in regular English. In fact, they seldom are. I agree with RM1 that "a building of three storeys," while perfectly understandable, is not how we usually say this.


----------



## sunyaer

JustKate said:


> Bylaws are not necessarily written in regular English.



What do you mean by "regular English"? And in what language are bylaws usually written?

How would you say something like "a building of many storeys" as in "there is a building of many storeys..." ? It looks like "a many-storey building" doesn't work, doesn't it?


----------



## JustKate

Bylaws are written in a form of legal English (sometimes called "legalese"), which is the kind of English specifically used by lawyers and other people to write laws and regulations. Such laws and regulations use words and phrases in different ways than those words and phrases are used in regular English, and there are also words and phrases used in legal English that are seldom - if ever - used by the rest of us. The language is clear in that it is, or should be, perfectly understandable to lawyers, regulators and judges, but it isn't clear to the rest of us. To the rest of us it sounds verbose, antiquated and needlessly complicated.

In short, you shouldn't use any law, regulation or bylaw written in the U.S. (and probably the UK, too) as a guide for writing regular English. 

"A many-storied building" sounds fine - "a building of many storeys" sounds slightly odd. Not quite as odd as "a building of five storeys," but close.


----------



## PaulQ

"Regular English" is the English that we all now speak and write. 

Laws and bye-laws used to be written in an English that disappeared about 150 years ago. Even at that time, the English of the legal system was not the English that anyone else spoke - you can imagine it as a very strong dialect. At that time, the legal system used technical and obscure wording, jargon, certain words had a very specific meaning, and adjectives and other modifiers were avoided where possible, as were commas, semicolons, etc.

In the UK since about 1970, the language of the law has become more modern and comprehensible but many laws pre-date 1970 and the old terms remain. These terms also remain in the parts of the world that the British colonised or influenced, and in some of those places, the old-fashioned jargon is still  used.


----------



## Copyright

I think the original would be natural if you're not sure of the number of stories: _"There is a building of about 20 stories at the corner of the street."_

Take a look at these Google results to get an idea of how "building of * stories" is used.


----------



## JustKate

Good point, Copyright. Yes, if you put an _about_ or _around_ in front of "20 stories," it sounds OK.


----------



## sunyaer

JustKate said:


> Good point, Copyright. Yes, if you put an _about_ or _around_ in front of "20 stories," it sounds OK.



When _about _or _around_ is needed, does "an about 20-story building" work?


----------



## Copyright

sunyaer said:


> When _about _or _around_ is needed, does "an about 20-story building" work?



Definitely not.


----------



## sunyaer

JustKate said:


> Good point, Copyright. Yes, if you put an _about_ or _around_ in front of "20 stories," it sounds OK.






Copyright said:


> sunyaer said:
> 
> 
> 
> When _about _or _around_ is needed, does "an about 20-story building" work?
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely not.
Click to expand...


So now the thing is reversed, " a building of about 20 stories" works while "an about 20-story building" doesn't.

By the way, is "a building of any size" natural?


----------



## JustKate

Oh, Copyright is so right! Sorry if I mislead you. "A building of about/around 20 stories" is fine, but "an about/around 20 story building" is not.


----------



## Chasint

JustKate said:


> Oh, Copyright is so right! Sorry if I mislead you. "A building of about/around 20 stories" is fine, but "an about/around 20 story building" is not.


Except that the plural of *storey* is *storeys*. (At least it is in BE.)


----------



## Copyright

Biffo said:


> Except that the plural of *storey* is *storeys*.


Not in American English and in the original post.


----------



## Chasint

sunyaer do you want the BE or the AE spelling?


----------



## JustKate

Biffo said:


> sunyaer do you want the BE or the AE spelling?



Well, he's got both now, so he can chose whichever he prefers or is most suitable. In AmE, it's _story/stories_ (usually) and in BE, it's _storey/storeys_.


----------



## Glasguensis

Whilst a building would not usually be of twenty storeys, I don't see anything wrong with it being of 20 stories, or even many more. I'm sure there was an old TV series about a city of a thousand stories...


----------



## Chasint

Glasguensis said:


> Whilst a building would not usually be of twenty storeys, I don't see anything wrong with it being of 20 stories, or even many more. I'm sure there was an old TV series about a city of a thousand stories...


I think this pun will be opaque to non-native speakers of English!


----------



## sunyaer

Biffo said:


> Glasguensis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst a building would not usually be of twenty storeys, I don't see anything wrong with it being of 20 stories, or even many more. I'm sure there was an old TV series about a city of a thousand stories...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this pun will be opaque to non-native speakers of English!
Click to expand...


"20 stories" was just a random choice when I wrote the original sentence.

"Story" could mean either a floor or an account of a past event, from which the pun comes from. 

Following up on my last question: is "a building of any size" natural?


----------



## JustKate

It could be - how were you intending to use it?


----------



## sunyaer

JustKate said:


> It could be - how were you intending to use it?



A building of any size could be built on this parcel of land.


----------



## JustKate

Grammatically it's fine. I'm not sure it works logically. "A building of any size" doesn't refer just to the number of stories. It could be the stories or the square footage or any other indicator of size you can think of, and logically there would have to be some size limitations. I mean, a building covering a full acre won't fit on a half-acre parcel.


----------



## sunyaer

I am still quite curious why "a building of 20 (or whatever number) stories" is not natural, while we can say things like " a building of many stories" as at this site: http://bndcollegeplanningcenter.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/visiting-a-building-of-many-stories/

The only reason I can think of is that "20 (or whatever number) stories" is the way people say in regular English, eventually making "a building of 20 stories" become a formal expression as it is not usually heard. Unfortunately, "a many story building" doesn't sound right, so people have to come up with another way to express it in regular English, giving opportunity to "a building of many stories".

Does this understanding make sense?


----------



## JustKate

"A many story building" doesn't sound right, but "a many-storied building" is OK (though I'd be more likely to say "a multi-storied building"). I know it seems odd, but it's nonetheless true, at least for me. You could be right that the "a building of 20 stories" structure sounds unnecessarily formal, but for me, it just sounds really stilted and wordy. Maybe that's the same thing as "formal," in this case.

However, I don't think that particular link is a good example of what you're talking about. Part of the reason is that it's a headline - notice this structure isn't repeated in the article - and people do play around with syntax, puns, rhymes, alliteration and things like that in headlines in order to keep them both short and interesting. So, many times you'll find structures in headlines that are uncommon in regular text.

And in this particular case, I wonder if he is making a subtle biblical reference, specifically Joseph's "coat of many colors" (from the book of Genesis, chapter 37). This may be farfetched, but that's the very first thing I thought of when I saw that "Visiting a building of many stories" headline, and I don't think I'd be the only one. It's a very well-known story and a very well-known reference. If so, the odd structure is done deliberately to recall to our minds the familiar structure of "a coat of many colors."


----------



## natkretep

JustKate said:


> "A many story building" doesn't sound right, but "a many-storied building" is OK (though I'd be more likely to say "a multi-storied building").


I would say 'multi-storey building', and in fact you can say _multistoreys _as a noun (for multi-storey car parks).

The construction <noun> + <_of_ phrase> perhaps shows more of a French influence and because of that it can have a more literary feel to it. So if you were writing a story (yes, a narrative) set in a faraway land in the indistinct past, I would be happy with, 'And beyond the plains and gently lit by the setting sun was a building of many storeys.'


----------



## JustKate

Yes, _multi-story/storey_ building works for me, too. I've never heard the noun form, and I can't say I'm crazy about it (such is the power of neologism ), but it does seem pretty useful, so I can see why it's caught on.


----------



## sunyaer

Glasguensis said:


> Whilst a building would not usually be of twenty storeys, I don't see anything wrong with it being of 20 stories, or even many more. I'm sure there was an old TV series about a city of a thousand stories...



How come it doesn't sound wrong to Glasguensis?


----------



## JamesM

He was making a joke about "storeys" and "stories".  In British English there are two words, one for floors of a building ("storeys") and one for tales ("stories").  They sound the same.  He was not saying that "a building of twenty storeys (floors)" sounded right.  He was saying that a building could contain many tales (stories).


----------



## sunyaer

Glasguensis said:


> ... I'm sure there was an old TV series about a city of a thousand stories...



Does Glasguensis mean tales by "stories" here as well?



JamesM said:


> ...
> He was not saying that "a building of twenty storeys (floors)" sounded right.  He was saying that a building could contain many tales (stories).



Understood. But why does "a building of twenty storeys (floors)" not sound right?

By the way, can we say "a father of twenty children"? (This pattern is similar to "a building of twenty storeys (floors)", isn't it?)


----------



## JamesM

Not meaning to be flippant, but it doesn't sound right because it doesn't sound right.  There are certain ways that words are put together in a language that sounds normal.  There are other ways that don't. I'm sure the same thing is true in Chinese.


----------



## PaulQ

You asked:





			
				sunyaer_#1 said:
			
		

> Is this sentence natural with the phrase "a building of 20 stories" in a "there is..." pattern?


 and, at #2, RM1(SS) replied





> That phrase is not natural.
> 
> "There is a 20-story building...."





sunyaer said:


> Understood. But why does "a building of twenty storeys (floors)" not sound right?
> 
> By the way, can we say "a father of twenty children"? (This pattern is similar to "a building of twenty storeys (floors)", isn't it?)


But we *cannot* say, "A twenty-children father"


----------



## RM1(SS)

Glasguensis said:


> Whilst a building would not usually be of twenty storeys, I don't see anything wrong with it being of 20 stories, or even many more. I'm sure there was an old TV series about a city of a thousand stories...


Just for the record, _The Naked City_.   "There are eight million stories in the naked city. This has been one of them."


----------



## sunyaer

JamesM said:


> Not meaning to be flippant, but it doesn't sound right because it doesn't sound right.
> ...



What would you make out of "a building of twenty storeys (floors)"? A building that contains twenty storeys (floors)?

Does "a structure of  twenty storeys (floors)" sound right?

I would be able to produce my explanations after the above two questions have been answered?


----------



## Glasguensis

I thought that the previous replies already made this clear but just to confirm:
In English we do NOT say "a building of twenty storeys/floors". We say "a twenty-storey building". There is no particular logic or reason - that's just the way we say it.


----------



## sunyaer

Copyright said:


> I think the original would be natural if you're not sure of the number of stories: _"There is a building of about 20 stories at the corner of the street."_
> 
> ...





JustKate said:


> Good point, Copyright. Yes, if you put an _about_ or _around_ in front of "20 stories," it sounds OK.





Glasguensis said:


> I thought that the previous replies already made this clear but just to confirm:
> In English we do NOT say "a building of twenty storeys/floors". We say "a twenty-storey building". There is no particular logic or reason - that's just the way we say it.



How come the word "about" would make it work?


----------



## Andygc

sunyaer said:


> How come the word "about" would make it work?


I'm sure you must be expecting this answer: "Because that's just the way we say it".


----------



## PaulQ

Sunyaer,

You are looking for rules, fixed laws that you can learn and apply: there are some sets of words that sound good, and some that do not: this is an art, not a science.

_"There is a building of about 20 stories at the corner of the street." _sounds ridiculous *without context*: why is this person making such a statement? The context will inform us of the best version, and the best version is 
_"There is a __20-storey __building at the corner of the street."_

But!
A: "I was in the mountain district and saw a solid piece of rock the size of a _20-storey __building." 
_B:"What does a 20-storey building look like? 
A: "There is a building of about 20 stories at the corner of the street." because we do *not *say: "There is an _about 20-storey __building_ at the corner of the street."


----------



## sunyaer

PaulQ said:


> Sunyaer,
> 
> You are looking for rules, fixed laws that you can learn and apply: there are some sets of words that sound good, and some that do not: this is an art, not a science.
> 
> _"There is a building of about 20 stories at the corner of the street." _sounds ridiculous *without context*: why is this person making such a statement? The context will inform us of the best version, and the best version is
> _"There is a __20-storey __building at the corner of the street."_
> 
> But!
> A: "I was in the mountain district and saw a solid piece of rock the size of a _20-storey __building."
> _B:"What does a 20-storey building look like?
> A: "There is a building of about 20 stories at the corner of the street." because we do *not *say: "There is an _about 20-storey __building_ at the corner of the street."



There are rules applied to the uses of the word "of", one of which, in the phrase "noun of...", is about introducing a intrinsic characteristic of the proceeding noun or an association between two entities, typically one of belonging. There are two reasons why "a building of 20 stories / floors" sounds odd in usual contexts:

First, there is no belonging relationship between "a building" and the number of stories / floors it has, like the phrase " a father of twenty children" given early.

Second, "20 stories / floors" is understood as a characteristic of "building", which is not the topic of a usual context regarding the number of stories of a building. But in the context given by PaulQ, what B is asking about is the characteristic of a building with "20 stories / floors", which is what the phrase means, making it sound right in that specific context. In this context, with or without "about" makes no difference in being idiomatic, only indicating the level of certainty of the speaker about the number of stories / floor.


----------



## Wordsmyth

That's very inventive, sunyaer, but I'm afraid it doesn't make any sense to me. 

Firstly, there are not _'rules'_ for the use of "of". What you've quoted is a _description_ of one of the ways in which it may be used. You seem to be putting the cart before the horse!

Secondly, if a building has 20 storeys, that's an intrinsic characteristic of the building, regardless of whether you say "a 20-storey building" or "a building of 20 storeys".

Both forms are theoretically legitimate. The only thing that makes one form more usual than the other is that one has, over time, been used more. At first, the preference for one form is probably arbitrary, and is probably only slight, but then you have a snowball effect. The more one particular form is used, the more it's heard and adopted by an increasing number of people, and so it becomes the dominant form.

Consider:
- _a 4-cylinder engine_. We could say _"an engine of 4 cylinders"_, but we don't: it's not incorrect, but it's just not idiomatic.
- _a collection of 15 paintings_. We could say _"a 15-painting collection"_, but we don't usually: it's not incorrect, but it's not commonly used.
- _a 10-year period_ / _a period of 10 years_: we say both; both are correct, and both are idiomatic.

If you want to try an analysis of those three different cases, to try and find a justification of the difference in terms of some sort of conceptual logic, feel free to try. But I think you'd be wasting your time. I suspect that the difference in evolution has been random.

Ws


----------



## sunyaer

PaulQ said:


> ...
> A: "There is a building of about 20 stories at the corner of the street." because we do *not *say: "There is an _about 20-storey __building_ at the corner of the street."





Wordsmyth said:


> ...
> Both forms are theoretically legitimate. The only thing that makes one form more usual than the other is that one has, over time, been used more. At first, the preference for one form is probably arbitrary, and is probably only slight, but then you have a snowball effect. The more one particular form is used, the more it's heard and adopted by an increasing number of people, and so it becomes the dominant form.
> ...



The insertion of the word "about" has forced us to go back to the non-dominant form "a building of about 20 stories". It's interesting that when we find expressions that are dominant unacceptable and there is no better way to express,  we resort back to the form that has been losing ground to the dominant form again.


----------



## Wordsmyth

I don't think it's a case of going back (or of being forced). Adding "about" wasn't a recent innovation. You can't take two different constructions and assume that one should naturally evolve in the same way as the other. 

Let's assume that at some past time the forms "a building of 20 storeys" and "a 20-storey building" may have been equally common (just as "a period of 10 years" and "a 10-year period" still are) — and that gradually the attributive form happened to become dominant.

At that same past time, the form "a building of about 20 storeys" also existed. Nobody said "an about 20-storey building", because there was no precedent for that construction, and it would have sounded clumsy and unnatural  — just as unnatural as "an about 20-foot rope" (although "a 20-foot rope" is fine). So "a building of about 20 storeys" was and has remained the normal form. It's not a case of two different constructions evolving in the same way, and then someone saying "Wait a minute, that one's not acceptable, let's 'resort back' _[sic]_ to an earlier form". The construction "an about 20-storey building" never existed, as far as I know, so there'd have been no 'resorting back' to do.

Ws


----------



## sunyaer

In some by-laws, we can find this sentence:

"Standard building" means a building of three storeys or less in building height, having a building area not exceeding...

Can "a building of three storeys" be changed to "a three storeys building" in the context? My answer is no: "standard building means a three storey building" doesn't sound right.


----------



## Andygc

The sentence "'Standard building' means a three-storey building." sounds perfectly acceptable. However, the sentence is "'Standard building' means a building of three storeys or less in building height" and "'Standard building' means a three-storey or less in building height building" would be ridiculous, even if grammatical, which it is.


----------



## sunyaer

Andygc said:


> The sentence "'Standard building' means a three-storey building." sounds perfectly acceptable. However, the sentence is "'Standard building' means a building of three storeys or less in building height" and "'Standard building' means a three-storey or less in building height building" would be ridiculous, even if grammatical, which it is.









The whole sentence is:*

"Standard Building*" means *buildings *of three storeys or less in *building height*, having a *building area *not exceeding 600 square meters and used for *major occupancies *classified as...

How to fix it?


----------



## Andygc

It doesn't need fixing. It's perfectly acceptable.


----------



## JamesM

Sunyear, when the modification is short, such as "twenty-story/storey" we tend to place it in front.  When it becomes an entire phrase (such as "of three storeys or less in building height") we _tend _to put the modifications after the noun.  There is no solid rule.  There is a tendency and it has more to do with a common consensus of what sounds good than with any rule.


----------



## SReynolds

Speaking of which, there is actually a phenomenon in Linguistics that describes this process (or at least something similar). It's called shifting and it tends to happen when certain parts of a sentence get _too heavy_ or _too light_. It's why someone who has a reasonable command of English is more inclined to say _John made up a really interesting story _instead of _John made a really interesting story up. _Because Linguistics only describes how language is actually used, it's not a _rule_, it's just a tendency that is observed by scientists.


----------



## Wordsmyth

sunyaer said:


> In some by-laws, we can find this sentence:
> 
> "Standard building" means a building of three storeys or less in building height, having a building area not exceeding...
> 
> Can "a building of three storeys" be changed to "a three storeys building" in the context? My answer is no: "standard building means a three storey building" doesn't sound right.


As Andy has pointed out, there's nothing wrong with "'Standard building' means a three-storey building", on its own. 

But that's not what the bylaw says. It says "'Standard building' means a building of *three storeys* *or less* ...". Even if you ignore "in building height", if you substitute "a three-storey building" for "a building of three storeys" you get "'Standard building' means a three-storey *building* *or less* ...", which doesn't really make sense: "or less" than what? Less than a building?

As James and SReynolds have explained, the simple phrase "three-storey" is fine as a premodifier. But more complex phrases, such as "about three storeys" and "three storeys or less", aren't normally used as premodifiers. This is a very general principle. To take an example that doesn't involve numbers: you can say "a bed of flowers" or "a flower bed"; and you can say "a bed of flowers with red petals", but we don't say "a flower with red petals bed".

Ws


----------

