# Board supported by two poles



## 99bottles

I want to describe a sign that looks like this.







I'm considering writing it like this in my text: _Two vertical metallic poles with a large, rectangular sign attached to them_. Or _Two vertical metallic poles, which a large, rectangular sign is attached to._

Are my options correct?


----------



## Szkot

Assuming that the sign is the important thing I would call it a sign mounted on two poles.


----------



## Uncle Jack

The original "Board attached on the ground by two metallic poles" is fine. It isn't particularly idiomatic, nor is it particularly informative, and it didn't make me think of what looks like a road sign, but it isn't wrong. "Sign mounted on two posts"  is both shorter and clearer. If we knew what the sign was, a road sign, perhaps, then we could make it even clearer by using a different word or expression in place of "sign".

A key question when considering what text to use for a picture is knowing exactly what the picture represents. The text says "metallic poles", for example. Well, they aren't "poles" in ordinary English (poles are thinner in relation to their length). They aren't obviously round, nor are they obviously metallic. If the artist who drew the picture was asked to draw a sign mounted on two metal posts, or something similar, then "metallic" (or "metal") would be entirely justified. However, if you are just describing what you see, without knowing the instruction the artist was given, then I don't think you can use the word "metallic".



99bottles said:


> _Two vertical metallic poles with a large, rectangular sign attached to them_. Or _Two vertical metallic poles, which a large, rectangular sign is attached to._


They are okay, but the only significant improvement on the original is replacing "board" with "rectangular sign", which makes it clear that it is mounted vertically. If you are going to use "which", then I suggest you move the preposition and write "to which".

How do you know the sign is large?


----------



## 99bottles

Uncle Jack said:


> A key question when considering what text to use for a picture is knowing exactly what the picture represents. The text says "metallic poles", for example. Well, they aren't "poles" in ordinary English (poles are thinner in relation to their length). They aren't obviously round, nor are they obviously metallic. If the artist who drew the picture was asked to draw a sign mounted on two metal posts, or something similar, then "metallic" (or "metal") would be entirely justified. However, if you are just describing what you see, without knowing the instruction the artist was given, then I don't think you can use the word "metallic".


Wait, what's the difference between _poles_ and _posts_?


----------



## Uncle Jack

In general, an upright stuck into the ground to support something is a post. We have lamp posts, signposts, gate posts, fence posts and just plain posts. Posts are always stuck into the ground (or are intended to be stuck into the ground), but poles generally are not. However, there are a couple of common uses of "pole" for things stuck into the ground, the most common being flagpoles, but we also have things like bean poles (long, slender supports for growing bean plants). Poles are long and thin, and round in cross section.


----------



## Edinburgher

99bottles said:


> _Two vertical metallic poles with a large, rectangular sign attached to them_. Or _Two vertical metallic poles, which a large, rectangular sign is attached to._


Is this a question about commas?  You don't need the one between "large" and "rectangular".

Your first version (without a comma after "poles" (which I agree should be "posts")) initially misleads the reader into thinking that each post has a sign attached to it.  It is not until the end of the sentence, where we get to "them", that we see that there is only one sign, and that it is attached to both poles.

Your second version is better in this respect, but problematic because "which XX is attached to" is not very natural.  It would be better to change this to "to which XX is attached."


----------



## 99bottles

Edinburgher said:


> Is this a question about commas?  You don't need the one between "large" and "rectangular".
> 
> Your first version (without a comma after "poles" (which I agree should be "posts")) initially misleads the reader into thinking that each post has a sign attached to it.  It is not until the end of the sentence, where we get to "them", that we see that there is only one sign, and that it is attached to both poles.
> 
> Your second version is better in this respect, but problematic because "which XX is attached to" is not very natural.  It would be better to change this to "to which XX is attached."


How would you write it?


----------



## 99bottles

Uncle Jack said:


> In general, an upright stuck into the ground to support something is a post. We have lamp posts, signposts, gate posts, fence posts and just plain posts. Posts are always stuck into the ground (or are intended to be stuck into the ground), but poles generally are not. However, there are a couple of common uses of "pole" for things stuck into the ground, the most common being flagpoles, but we also have things like bean poles (long, slender supports for growing bean plants). Poles are long and thin, and round in cross section.


With telephones, why are they called poles instead of posts?


----------



## Szkot

But according to my local council:



> All traffic sign _poles _should be grey. The back panel for signs should match the _pole _colour. • _Poles _should be located to minimise obstructing the footway



We also have telegraph poles and bus stop poles (with flags).  The post/pole distinction is not clear-cut.


----------



## Uncle Jack

99bottles said:


> With telephones, why are they called poles instead of posts?


Ah, I forgot about them. Why we have telephone poles but lamp posts, I am not at all sure. Perhaps it is because lamp posts obviously support a lamp, but you have to look very carefully to see that telephone poles support telephone wires. At any rate, telephone poles are tall and slender, with a length to diameter ratio of 20 to 1 or more. Posts can be short and stocky.


----------



## abluter

Going back to the signboard, if it were _*very large*_, it could perhaps be described as a billboard - though those are invariably made of wood, and supported by many more than two poles/posts.


----------



## Packard

A google search for "single pole sign" was on point, with the [images] showing overwhelmingly signs with a single pole.

However "dual pole" and "two pole" and "twin pole"  signs searches get similar results for signs with two upright poles with a few single pole images thrown in. 

Swapping "posts" for "poles" results in smaller scale signs showing up in the searches.  

I'm not sure any of this helps much.  It is not exactly data-based.


----------



## LVRBC

For starters, I would not say metallic.  If poles are made of metal and that's important in the description, then in US-English we would say metal poles.  I agree with Jack that those you show aren't round enough to be poles; they're metal posts or supports.


----------



## 99bottles

Uncle Jack said:


> The original "Board attached on the ground by two metallic poles" is fine. It isn't particularly idiomatic, nor is it particularly informative, and it didn't make me think of what looks like a road sign, but it isn't wrong. "Sign mounted on two posts"  is both shorter and clearer. If we knew what the sign was, a road sign, perhaps, then we could make it even clearer by using a different word or expression in place of "sign".
> 
> A key question when considering what text to use for a picture is knowing exactly what the picture represents. The text says "metallic poles", for example. Well, they aren't "poles" in ordinary English (poles are thinner in relation to their length). They aren't obviously round, nor are they obviously metallic. If the artist who drew the picture was asked to draw a sign mounted on two metal posts, or something similar, then "metallic" (or "metal") would be entirely justified. However, if you are just describing what you see, without knowing the instruction the artist was given, then I don't think you can use the word "metallic".
> 
> 
> They are okay, but the only significant improvement on the original is replacing "board" with "rectangular sign", which makes it clear that it is mounted vertically. If you are going to use "which", then I suggest you move the preposition and write "to which".
> 
> How do you know the sign is large?


If it's not too much to ask, may I ask about another, similar case? How would you describe the picture below? Here is what I've got so far:

_The camp entrance consisted of two vertical wooden posts and a large, rectangular sign attached to them._


----------



## Edinburgher

99bottles said:


> How would you write it?


I'd write it in accordance with the comments I made (plus the correction of metallic to metal).
_Two vertical metal posts, to which a large rectangular sign is attached._
But the other version (suitably modified) would also work:
_Two vertical metal posts with a large rectangular sign attached to them_.

However, I'm puzzled why you want to mention the posts first; it makes them seem more important than the sign.

_A large rectangular sign mounted on two vertical metal posts._


99bottles said:


> If it's not too much to ask, may I ask about another, similar case?


It's exactly the same: *No comma* between _large_ and _rectangular_.  The rest is not too bad, except that again it's strange to mention the posts before the sign.  A new problem is that "the entrance *consists of*" is not quite right.  "The entrance passes through or is framed by ..." seems more accurate.


----------



## 99bottles

Edinburgher said:


> It's exactly the same: *No comma* between _large_ and _rectangular_.  The rest is not too bad, except that again it's strange to mention the posts before the sign.  A new problem is that "the entrance *consists of*" is not quite right.  "The entrance passes through or is framed by ..." seems more accurate.


_The entrance was framed by a large rectangular sign mounted on two vertical wooden posts_?


----------



## Uncle Jack

At the entrance, foot-high solid letters spelled out SKY CAMP above the track.

"Large" and "rectangular" do not describe the sign at all, not in any meaningful sense. The most important part of the sign is the letters. They are secured to two planks of wood. The planks of wood are mounted on wooden posts. It is rare to need to say that posts are vertical, although you might say if they aren't.


----------



## Packard

99bottles said:


> If it's not too much to ask, may I ask about another, similar case? How would you describe the picture below? Here is what I've got so far:
> 
> _The camp entrance consisted of two vertical wooden posts and a large, rectangular sign attached to them._
> 
> View attachment 68812


The sign spanned the roadway leading to the camp, supported at both ends by retired telephone poles.


----------



## 99bottles

Uncle Jack said:


> At the entrance, foot-high solid letters spelled out SKY CAMP above the track.
> 
> "Large" and "rectangular" do not describe the sign at all, not in any meaningful sense. The most important part of the sign is the letters. They are secured to two planks of wood. The planks of wood are mounted on wooden posts. It is rare to need to say that posts are vertical, although you might say if they aren't.


How about this?

_At the entrance, a sign mounted on two wooden posts said, in large, blue capital letters, "SKY CAMP."_


----------



## Edinburgher

Well, that's a good sentence, but it doesn't convey the idea that the sign is above the road, and the two posts are far enough apart to drive a horse and cart through.  It sounds like smaller (but still fairly large) sign beside the road.


----------



## 99bottles

Edinburgher said:


> Well, that's a good sentence, but it doesn't convey the idea that the sign is above the road, and the two posts are far enough apart to drive a horse and cart through.  It sounds like smaller (but still fairly large) sign beside the road.


Are you talking about Post #16 or #19?


----------



## Edinburgher

Sorry, about #19, because in #16 the word "framed" makes clear that the road goes through the structure.


----------



## Packard

That works, but if you want to fully describe the image then you probably have to add "spanning the driveway to the camp".


_At the entrance, a sign *spanning the driveway* and mounted on two wooden posts said, in large, blue capital letters, "SKY CAMP."_


----------



## 99bottles

Packard said:


> That works, but if you want to fully describe the image then you probably have to add "spanning the driveway to the camp".


Are you talking about Post #16 or #19?


----------



## 99bottles

Edinburgher said:


> Sorry, about #19, because in #16 the word "framed" makes clear that the road goes through the structure.


So, is my suggestion in #16 good?


----------



## Packard

99bottles said:


> Are you talking about Post #16 or #19?


I amended my post.


----------



## Edinburgher

99bottles said:


> So, is my suggestion in #16 good?


Yes, it works.  But other suggestions are perhaps better.  If you use the passive "was framed by", you are focusing on the entrance, not on the sign.  If you say "the sign spanned the entrance", you are focusing more on the sign than on the roadway.


----------



## kentix

Edinburgher said:


> However, I'm puzzled why you want to mention the posts first; it makes them seem more important than the sign.


----------



## 99bottles

Edinburgher said:


> Yes, it works.  But other suggestions are perhaps better.  If you use the passive "was framed by", you are focusing on the entrance, not on the sign.  If you say "the sign spanned the entrance", you are focusing more on the sign than on the roadway.


Do you think the suggestion in #23 is the best?


----------



## Edinburgher

99bottles said:


> Do you think the suggestion in #23 is the best?


No.  It's okay, but "spanning" feels a bit too technical.  I might go for "A sign above the ...".


----------



## 99bottles

Edinburgher said:


> No.  It's okay, but "spanning" feels a bit too technical.  I might go for "A sign above the ...".


You mean like this?

_At the entrance, above the driveway, there was a sign mounted on two wooden posts. The aforementioned sign said, in large, blue capital letters, "SKY CAMP."_


----------



## Packard

What is your target audience?  Is it potential campers?  Investors?

You have to tailor your writing for your intended audience.


----------



## 99bottles

Packard said:


> What is your target audience?  Is it potential campers?  Investors?
> 
> You have to tailor your writing for your intended audience.


Readers of fiction.


----------



## kentix

It seems to me the idea that it's a sort of an arch (not technically, of course) that you have to pass through is significant to set the scene properly. I think somehow it needs to be indicated that you pass through or under the sign in a way like entering a doorway. Some of the suggestions above make it clear that the sign is above, but not particularly clear that the posts serve as a sort of doorway to pass through. A sign mounted on two posts could easily be off to the side. It's really, in a way, an entranceway (sort of ceremonial), part of which is composed of a sign.

Added:

I see I repeated #20, more or less.


----------



## kentix

Maybe (adapting #23):

_At the entrance, a sign *spanning the driveway* and mounted high on two large wooden posts set on either side of the road said, in large, blue capital letters, "SKY CAMP."_

More significant changes:

_At the entrance, a sign in large, blue capital letters announcing the place as "SKY CAMP" was mounted high on two large wooden posts set on either side of the road, through which visitors had to pass to enter._


----------



## Packard

There are so many ways to say this.  This thread could become a list, not of words, but of sentences. We can go on and on. But maybe you should press on with the story and return to this on your final rewrite.

_“As you drove up, you passed under a sign announcing “Sky Camp” overhead supported by stout wooden poles on either side of the road.”_


----------



## Edinburgher

99bottles said:


> You mean like this?
> 
> _At the entrance, above the driveway, there was a sign mounted on two wooden posts. The aforementioned sign said, in large, blue capital letters, "SKY CAMP."_


What I meant was to make a minimal change to #23:
_At the entrance, a sign *above* the driveway *and* mounted on two wooden posts said, in large, blue capital letters, "SKY CAMP."_
probably changing the "and" to a comma and adding another comma after "posts".

Kentix in #34 amplifies my point rather well.  It's all about the impression you want to give to your reader.  You are using words to paint a picture.
There is a well-known saying that a picture is worth a thousand words, so you sometimes have to be prepared for it to take a thousand words to "paint" your picture.


----------



## Packard

Edinburgher said:


> [...] so you sometimes have to be prepared for it to take a thousand words to "paint" your picture.


Stephen King (not one of my favorite writers) does a remarkably capable job of "painting pictures" with words.  But it shows.  The average adult novel has a word-count of 70,000 to 120,000 words.  

The Stand, a novel by King has a word-count of 514,827 words (I had to look that up).

I am not suggesting that every scene be painted with so much detail, and this camp sign might not warrant it.  But when a scene comes along that does require setting the stage, then perhaps you need to be patient and industrious and use more words and more sentenced to do so.
_
Like a rustic and rural arc du triomphe, the camp sign [...]   _


----------



## 99bottles

Edinburgher said:


> A new problem is that "the entrance *consists of*" is not quite right.


I saw that in most dictionaries, an entrance is also defined as a gate. I'm pretty sure that a gate can consist of something. So can't we view that structure in Post #14 as a gate and go like, "The entrance consisted of..."?


----------



## kentix

The thing is, a turn in the road can be an entrance. There doesn't have to be a structure there. If you pass from a public road onto a private road on private property that's the entrance to the property.


----------



## Packard

_The single lane driveway to the camp welcomed visitors with a large sign that you drove under that said, “Sky Camp_”.

I don’t think you have to mention “poles” or “posts” once you establish that you have to drive under the sign.


----------



## 99bottles

Packard said:


> _The single lane driveway to the camp welcomed visitors with a large sign that you drove under that said, “Sky Camp_”.
> 
> I don’t think you have to mention “poles” or “posts” once you establish that you have to drive under the sign.


_The single-lane driveway leading to the camp passed under a large sign that said, "Sky Camp"._


----------



## Packard

That works too.  It only matters what you want to say.  Do you want to say that it was there, or do you want to say that it was there to welcome visitors.  I assumed the latter.  But both work.


----------

