# Return vs. be returned



## Nourished Gourmet

Hello there

Just curious, can the verb "return" be used intransitively as an alternative to its transitive form in the following example:

_You can always enter your email address in the “alert stock” button under the size XL in case the item *is returned*.
__You can always enter your email address in the “alert stock” button under the size XL in case the item *returns*._


The context is online shopping. An item I wanted to get just ran out of stock. Customer Support suggests I request to be alerted by email in case the item is returned.

Thank you for any help you can provide on this.


----------



## JamesM

"An item that is returned" most commonly means that the customer returned the item to the store for an exchange or refund.  I wouldn't use "is returned' in this context.  In fact,  I wouldn't use "returns", either.   The item doesn't return.  It comes back in stock or is restocked.  To return, when dealing with inventory, means that it first had to be sent somewhere first.


----------



## entangledbank

In a commercial context, 'is returned' means a customer who bought it has brought it back (returned it), because it was damaged or they didn't like the colour or it didn't fit the person it was a present for . . . Active 'return' wouldn't be used for this. I'm not sure what an _item_ returning would be. If they get more supplies from the warehouse, so they now have more to sell, the item comes back into stock. I don't think we'd say it returns into stock.

_Cross-posted, of course._


----------



## Nourished Gourmet

Apparently, what is meant here is "is returned" in the sense of "is sent back to shipper".

For this reason, you might want to consider a copy of the original email:

_Yes, I’m afraid so. Someone ordered it today._
_You can always enter your email address in the “alert stock” button under the size XL in case it’s returned._


----------



## Andygc

Nourished Gourmet said:


> Apparently, what is meant here is "is returned" in the sense of "is sent back to shipper".


Yes, we know that - two people have just posted to confirm that meaning. What is your question? You have just reposted the same sentence, adding  nothing new to the thread. The answer to your original question "can the  verb "return" be used intransitively as an alternative to its  transitive form in the following example" is still "no".


----------



## Nourished Gourmet

I wish someone could tell me whether the transitive and intransitive  forms of the verb "return" can be used interchangeably in this context.

*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*

Ok then, "Return" cannot be used intransitively in such a context.

However, sorry to say, but both of the contributors to this thread thought erroneously that "return" was used in the sense "come back in stock" because the context was primarily unclear, hence my addition of the clarifying phrase "Yes, I'm afraid so. Someone ordered it today".


----------



## Andygc

Nourished Gourmet said:


> I wish someone could tell me whether the transitive and intransitive forms of the verb "return" can be used interchangeably in this context.


You have been told three times: posts #2, #3 and #5. "No"


----------



## Nourished Gourmet

<< Off-topic comment deleted.  Please use a "respectful, helpful and cordial manner.">>


----------



## JamesM

Nourished Gourmet said:


> Ok then, "Return" cannot be used intransitively in such a context.
> 
> However, sorry to say, but both of the contributors to this thread thought erroneously that "return" was used in the sense "come back in stock" because the context was primarily unclear, hence my addition of the clarifying phrase "Yes, I'm afraid so. Someone ordered it today".



The part that is unclear is that the customer is being asked to enter an email address next to the size desired "in case the item is returned."  Do you mean that they will send out the returned product to the customer entering the email address if another customer returns it?  

This is an unusual circumstance here so that may be why we were confused.  The laws are very strict in the U.S.  about selling items that have been returned.  In most cases they cannot be sent to someone as if they were new.  They must be marked "refurbished", "returned" or with some other label and are usually discounted.  As a result, the idea that a company would talk about sending a customer something they are ordering as a new item "if it is returned" is foreign.  It was difficult to picture the circumstances.

Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Nourished Gourmet

The company involved here is British and, as you correctly pointed out, they will send me the returned product -- provided I have entered my email address -- if another customer returns it.


----------



## JamesM

Ah!  Thanks, Nourished Gourmet.  Yes, it's a foreign concept to me.  In that case, "is returned" makes sense to me but "returns" does not.  "Returns" implies that it does so of its own will.   A homing pigeon returns to its home, for example.


----------



## Nourished Gourmet

JamesM said:


> Ah!  Thanks, Nourished Gourmet.  Yes, it's a foreign concept to me.  In that case, "is returned" makes sense to me but "returns" does not.  "Returns" implies that it does so of its own will.   A homing pigeon returns to its home, for example.



Thank you for clarifying this point, JamesM. 
Actually, I thought (erroneously) that "return" could be used intransitively in this context the way such verbs related to the online business jargon as "ship" or "send" currently are. 

e.g.:

_Your order has shipped today._
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-successful-email-i-ever-wrote-2012-6
_ 
You will receive a second email when your item has sent._
http://wrapcity.net/cms1/customer-service/


----------



## Andygc

Nourished Gourmet said:


> _You will receive a second email when your item has sent._
> http://wrapcity.net/cms1/customer-service/


The text at your link is "... has been sent". "To send" is used normally in all walks of life. There is no "online business jargon" version. The specific past tense form "has shipped" of the intransitive verb "to ship" predates the internet and goes back some 700 years. Neither verb has any connection with "to return".


----------



## JamesM

Nourished Gourmet said:


> Thank you for clarifying this point, JamesM.
> Actually, I thought (erroneously) that "return" could be used intransitively in this context the way such verbs related to the online business jargon as "ship" or "send" currently are.
> 
> e.g.:
> 
> _Your order has shipped today._
> http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-successful-email-i-ever-wrote-2012-6
> _
> You will receive a second email when your item has sent._
> http://wrapcity.net/cms1/customer-service/



It can be used in the same type of format:

"One of the items you were interested in _was returned_ today by another customer.  The item number and image is shown below.  If you would still like us to send it to you, please respond to this email."

Note that you can say "Your item shipped" (intransitive) but you can't say "Your item returned" (at least in this context) or "Your item sent" (intransitive).  

You could say "Your item returned" if the package was not successfully delivered.  "Your item returned to us with a note from the postal service stating that the shipping address you gave us did not exist.  Please correct your shipping address."  Even then, "was returned" is better, in my opinion.


----------



## Nourished Gourmet

Andygc said:


> The text at your link is "... has been sent". "To send" is used normally in all walks of life. There is no "online business jargon" version. The specific past tense form "has shipped" of the intransitive verb "to ship" predates the internet and goes back some 700 years. Neither verb has any connection with "to return".



The text at my link definitely is "...has sent". Please head down to the second line of the "Ordering" section in the bottom of the page, and check it out for yourself. Thank you.


----------



## Nourished Gourmet

JamesM said:


> It can be used in the same type of format:
> 
> "One of the items you were interested in _was returned_ today by another customer.  The item number and image is shown below.  If you would still like us to send it to you, please respond to this email."
> 
> Note that you can say "Your item shipped" (intransitive) but you can't say "Your item returned" (at least in this context) or "Your item sent" (intransitive).
> 
> You could say "Your item returned" if the package was not successfully delivered.  "Your item returned to us with a note from the postal service stating that the shipping address you gave us did not exist.  Please correct your shipping address."  Even then, "was returned" is better, in my opinion.



JamesM, how would you then consider the use of intransitive "return" in the following example:

_We'll put your name on the reserve list for when the item returns._
http://robinsafblibraryblog.com/2012/12/


----------



## Andygc

Nourished Gourmet said:


> The text at my link definitely is "...has sent". Please head down to the second line of the "Ordering" section in the bottom of the page, and check it out for yourself. Thank you.


 I see. Your link has two examples, I found the first one.
"You will receive an email to verify your order has been sent." and
"you will receive a second email after your order has sent."
The second one is an error. If you read the page with a little care you wil find several errors of grammar and of spelling. You would be unwise to take this as a reliable example of normal English usage.


----------



## Nourished Gourmet

JamesM said:


> It can be used in the same type of format:
> 
> "One of the items you were interested in _was returned_ today by another customer.  The item number and image is shown below.  If you would still like us to send it to you, please respond to this email."
> 
> Note that you can say "Your item shipped" (intransitive) but you can't say "Your item returned" (at least in this context) or "Your item sent" (intransitive).
> 
> You could say "Your item returned" if the package was not successfully delivered.  "Your item returned to us with a note from the postal service stating that the shipping address you gave us did not exist.  Please correct your shipping address."  Even then, "was returned" is better, in my opinion.



JamesM, here's an even more carefully sourced talking example of such usage you might want to consider:

_When the item *returns* to the Library..._
http://www.relay.edu/library-policies/


----------



## JamesM

This is not a direct match to either my example or your original example.    I do see that it uses "the item returns" but I would consider that unusual, particularly since it uses "is returned" later on in the same sentence.  I think it would be very unusual to find "when the item returns" when talking to a customer.

I think this is a valid use of "the item returns", but I think it is written from the point of view of a communication to fellow users of the library.  They don't care how the book returned, only that it returned.  In a commercial transaction it is important to indicate who is responsible for doing what.  I imagine you would find it more carefully worded in the section about check-out privileges at this library.   If you read further down in the document, the wording is "Late fees are not charged, however patrons are expected to return materials in a timely manner."  This would not be worded as "We expect the books to return in a timely manner."  

Did you find many examples of this?


----------



## Nourished Gourmet

Andygc said:


> I see. Your link has two examples, I found the first one.
> "You will receive an email to verify your order has been sent." and
> "you will receive a second email after your order has sent."
> The second one is an error. If you read the page with a little care you wil find several errors of grammar and of spelling. You would be unwise to take this as a reliable example of normal English usage.


Andygc, with all due respect, I clearly quoted in Post #12 the whole phrase in which "has sent" could be found, and so there apparently should have been no risk of confusion with whatever other example in the text.


----------



## RM1(SS)

Nourished Gourmet said:


> Andygc, with all due respect, I clearly quoted in Post #12 the whole phrase in which "has sent" could be found, and so there apparently should have been no risk of confusion with whatever other example in the text.


And as Andygc clearly said, that is incorrect.


----------



## Nourished Gourmet

JamesM said:


> This is not a direct match to either my example or your original example.    I do see that it uses "the item returns" but I would consider that unusual, particularly since it uses "is returned" later on in the same sentence.  I think it would be very unusual to find "when the item returns" when talking to a customer.
> 
> I think this is a valid use of "the item returns", but I think it is written from the point of view of a communication to fellow users of the library.  They don't care how the book returned, only that it returned.  In a commercial transaction it is important to indicate who is responsible for doing what.  I imagine you would find it more carefully worded in the section about check-out privileges at this library.   If you read further down in the document, the wording is "Late fees are not charged, however patrons are expected to return materials in a timely manner."  This would not be worded as "We expect the books to return in a timely manner."
> 
> Did you find many examples of this?



Yes siree, quite a few actually. Here's a couple of them:

_...when the item *returns* to the University premises..._
http://policy.umn.edu/Policies/Finance/Inventory/PROPERTY_PROC02.html

_...when the item *returns* to the home library..._
http://igelu.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/IGELU2011._pdf

...plus a restocking fee when the item *returns*..._
http://www.swankyoutlet.com/pages/returns-policy

_...when the item *returns* to us..._
https://www.directproaudio.com/welcome/store-policies.cfm

_...when the item *returns* in its original condition..._
http://www.the-archive.co.uk/page398.html


----------



## JamesM

Then it sounds like you are convinced it is a good construction.     Feel free to use it with impunity.  I would consider it an odd use.

By the way, does finding many examples of a certain construction work as a good rule of thumb for determining whether something is idiomatic or not?  If so, should I apply this rule of thumb as I learn French? 

In other words, if I can find multiple examples of a construction in French on the internet, should I opt for that over what a French speaker tells me?  If so, you might save a great deal of time by simply doing searches and trusting the results rather than arguing for the construction with native speakers, and I'll do the same with French.


----------



## Nourished Gourmet

JamesM said:


> Then it sounds like you are convinced it is a good construction.     Feel free to use it with impunity.  I would consider it an odd use.
> 
> By the way, does finding many examples of a certain construction work as a good rule of thumb for determining whether something is idiomatic or not?  If so, should I apply this rule of thumb as I learn French?
> 
> In other words, if I can find multiple examples of a construction in French on the internet, should I opt for that over what a French speaker tells me?  If so, you might save a great deal of time by simply doing searches and trusting the results rather than arguing for the construction with native speakers, and I'll do the same with French.



JamesM: native speaker's word prevails, but some native speakers' words prevail more than others, yours belonging among those native speakers' words that prevail the most...
All things said and done (and as you justly pointed up), I'm at liberty to use -- and find no fault in doing so -- whatever word construction sounds good to me...and might sound cheesy to others.


----------



## Nourished Gourmet

RM1(SS) said:


> And as Andygc clearly said, that is incorrect.



And I clearly and totally agree with that...with no ifs, ands, or buts attached!


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

Nourished Gourmet said:


> Hello there
> 
> Just curious, can the verb "return" be used intransitively as an alternative to its transitive form in the following example:
> 
> _You can always enter your email address in the “alert stock” button under the size XL in case the item *is returned*.
> __You can always enter your email address in the “alert stock” button under the size XL in case the item *returns*._
> 
> 
> The context is online shopping. An item I wanted to get just ran out of stock. Customer Support suggests I request to be alerted by email in case the item is returned.
> 
> Thank you for any help you can provide on this.



In my opinion there's nothing wrong with the second sentence. The second one means much the same as ' ... _ button under the size XL in case the item *comes back*.'_


>> can the verb "return" be used intransitively as an alternative to its transitive form in the following example?

Well, they don't quite mean the same thing, so I would say not. 

A returned item could fail to return. 

An item may be returned (sent back to the company for a refund) but subsequently fail to reach its destination (it gets lost in the post, say). Under these circumstances it never returns to the company. 

This is a trifling distinction, I suppose. Given the context, it's pretty clear that they're both intended to mean the same thing. 

(This, to my mind, is not comparable to the 'is shipped' vs. 'ships' example.)


----------



## Andygc

I have to disagree with you, Beryl. I don't think it fits in that context. As I know you know, "return" can mean "send back" or "come back". That gives us three contexts: things that are not expected to come back but may be sent back; things that are expected to come back, but need an action to be made to come back; and things that naturally come back.
In the original context there is no reason to expect the item to come back - it has to be sent back, so the passive construction is needed "in case the item is returned".
In the context of a library book, a principal function of the book is to be returned. It is sent back by the borrower (it is returned) and when it comes back to the library it returns. That also applies to the recently added examples. The sending back has been agreed through the returns policy. Thus, the item is returned by the customer and it, as expected, returns to the vendor.
In the context of a properly-thrown boomerang, the return is a principal function of the boomerang and is its innate quality. It comes back,  but it is not sent back. Thus, a boomerang is not returned, but returns. It is only a badly-thrown boomerang that needs to be returned.

As JamesM pointed out right at the beginning of this thread,  in the context of the original post, the use of "returns" rather than "is returned" is abnormal. All that has been demonstrated since is that it is possible to find other contexts where this is nof the case, and that it is a simple matter to find examples of illiterate English through an internet search.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

That all sound rather esoteric to me. Are you suggesting that when a good is returned, it cannot return?


----------



## Andygc

Beryl from Northallerton said:


> That all sound rather esoteric to me. Are you suggesting that when a good is returned, it cannot return?


No. As I said for library books, they are returned by the borrower and they return to the library. The same applies to the situation where the vendor is describing the returns procedure. The return is agreed, the goods are returned by the buyer, when the goods are returned they return to the warehouse, and the buyer gets their money back.

The OP had a specific context and the question was about a hypothetical sentence "_You can always enter your email address in the “alert stock” button under the size XL in case the item *returns*." _with no evidence that this has ever been used in written English. For me, there is absolutely no question that in that specific context the answer to the question asked is "no".


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

That'll do for me. 

" .... when the goods are returned they return to the warehouse ..."

When a good is returned it returns to the warehouse. So if an item (such as the one you wanted but is currently out of stock) returns we can send it out to you - just sign here. 

That seems fairly standard to me. Maybe you'd be more inclined to accept it with 'comes back' than with 'returns'.


----------



## Andygc

Beryl from Northallerton said:


> That seems fairly standard to me. Maybe you'd be more inclined to accept it with 'comes back' than with 'returns'.


I wouldn't, as it happens. In the specific situation in the OP there is no reason to expect the item to come back. There is only the chance that it might be sent back - hence "... in case the item is returned". I may be nit-picking, but I find the alternative wholly unnatural.


----------



## wandle

'Come back' is regularly used in relation to inanimate objects ("Rubber ball, come bouncing back to me" - E. Presley), while 'return' (intransitive) is not.
In addition, 'return' has a specific business sense: the act of a customer, for a particular reason, sending back goods supplied.

Both these grounds make it inappropriate to use 'return' (intransitive) in the way suggested.


----------



## Nourished Gourmet

Andygc said:


> No. As I said for library books, they are returned by the borrower and they return to the library. The same applies to the situation where the vendor is describing the returns procedure. The return is agreed, the goods are returned by the buyer, when the goods are returned they return to the warehouse, and the buyer gets their money back.The OP had a specific context and the question was about a hypothetical sentence "_You can always enter your email address in the “alert stock” button under the size XL in case the item *returns*." with no evidence that this has ever been used in written English. For me, there is absolutely no question that in that specific context the answer to the question asked is "no"._



That also will do for me.

Now, you might want to consider an ultimate example sourced from the email I sent (before asking the question in this forum) in response to the original one this thread is all about:
_
I already requested to be alerted by email if and when this item *returns*.
_
In this specific example, the use of intransitive "return" sounds legitimate to me as long as what prevails for me here as a customer is the fact that I can be notified of when the item becomes available again so I may order it. Little do I care if it will be back for sale because some unhappy customer decided to send it back or because the store received a new supply of it. What matters here is that I can be alerted by the store if and when it's back, period.


----------



## JamesM

When a product is resupplied it is more typical to use "re-stocked", not "returned to stock".  "Returned to stock" in business specifically means that the item was sent from stock to some other location and subsequently the item was returned and placed back into stock.


----------



## Nourished Gourmet

wandle said:


> 'Come back' is regularly used in relation to inanimate objects ("Rubber ball, come bouncing back to me" - E. Presley), while 'return' (intransitive) is not.
> In addition, 'return' has a specific business sense: the act of a customer, for a particular reason, sending back goods supplied.
> 
> Both these grounds make it inappropriate to use 'return' (intransitive) in the way suggested.


QUOTE=wandle;14038671]'Come back' is regularly used in relation to inanimate objects ("Rubber ball, come bouncing back to me" - E. Presley), while 'return' (intransitive) is not.In addition, 'return' has a specific business sense: the act of a customer, for a particular reason, sending back goods supplied.Both these grounds make it inappropriate to use 'return' (intransitive) in the way suggested.[/QUOTE]

How about in the case of a product being resupplied, does the use of intransitive "return" sound any more appropriate to you?

_If you would like an estimate on when an item will *return to stock*..._
http://www.crafterscompanion.com/Terms-and-Conditions_ep_2-1.html


----------



## Nourished Gourmet

JamesM said:


> When a product is resupplied it is more typical to use "re-stocked", not "returned to stock".  "Returned to stock" in business specifically means that the item was sent from stock to some other location and subsequently the item was returned and placed back into stock.



Glad to know that distinction, JamesM. 
So,  if I got you right on that point, "be back in stock" can be used interchangeably with "be restocked", but definitely not with "return to stock", which has its own specific meaning in business jargon.


----------



## JamesM

Yes.  "The item is back in stock" means that it has been restocked.  There is a concept of "Best Practices" in American business.  It might be useful for you when exploring these types of things.  

Any company can word things any way they want, but how do the best companies word it?  Instead of searching for examples that prove that some companies use it, it might be more effective to look at the major companies (Macy's, Kohl's, Target, Costco as U.S. examples) and see how _they_ write return policies.  They are more likely to have had it reviewed for both legal compliance and appropriate communication than a company like Crafters Companion, which may be a fine company but probably does not have the staff to properly review their written policies.


----------



## Nourished Gourmet

JamesM said:


> Yes.  "The item is back in stock" means that it has been restocked.  There is a concept of "Best Practices" in American business.  It might be useful for you when exploring these types of things.
> 
> Any company can word things any way they want, but how do the best companies word it?  Instead of searching for examples that prove that some companies use it, it might be more effective to look at the major companies (Macy's, Kohl's, Target, Costco as U.S. examples) and see how _they_ write return policies.  They are more likely to have had it reviewed for both legal compliance and appropriate communication than a company like Crafters Companion, which may be a fine company but probably does not have the staff to properly review their written policies.



How would you consider such a company as Billy Reid, Inc.?


----------



## JamesM

I'm not familiar with Billy Reid.  According to Wikipedia, he is a designer with a clothing line with his own boutique shops.  His company also supplies large department stores.  I wouldn't expect his company to have the same oversight on policy that Target, Macy's or Bloomingdale's has.

[edit] According to Manta, the company has annual sales of $300,000.  That puts it in a slightly different category from Target ($71 billion) or Macy's ($27 billion).

[edit] With multiple stores, contracts with major department stores and shoe lines (K-Swiss) I imagine the Manta figure is for a single store.  After a little more research, I'm sure his company makes millions but not billions.  Since it is a private company it's difficult to get an idea of sales or revenue.


----------



## Nourished Gourmet

JamesM said:


> I'm not familiar with Billy Reid.  According to Wikipedia, he is a designer with a clothing line with his own boutique shops.  His company also supplies large department stores.  I wouldn't expect his company to have the same oversight on policy that Target, Macy's or Bloomingdale's has.
> 
> [edit] According to Manta, the company has annual sales of $300,000.  That puts it in a slightly different category from Target ($71 billion) or Macy's ($27 billion).
> 
> [edit] With multiple stores, contracts with major department stores and shoe lines (K-Swiss) I imagine the Manta figure is for a single store.  I'm sure his company makes millions, after researching a little more, but not billions.  Since it is a private company it's difficult to get an idea of sales or revenue.



Very well then. I was just asking because here's what I found on his return policy page:

_You may also take your purchases to any Billy Reid retail location to *return or exchange*._
http://www.billyreid.com/store/returns

In light of all what has been copiously said on this topic so far, don't you think it would sound better if this example was rephrased as follows:
_You may also take your purchases to any Billy Reid retail location to *be returned or exchanged*._


----------



## JulianStuart

Nourished Gourmet said:


> Very well then. I was just asking because here's what I found on his return policy page:
> 
> _You may also take your purchases to any Billy Reid retail location to *return or exchange*._
> http://www.billyreid.com/store/returns
> 
> In light of all what has been said on this topic so far, don't you think it would sound better if this example was rephrased as follows:
> _You may also take your purchases to any Billy Reid retail location to *be returned or exchanged*._


It seems fine as it is: you are the one who will return or exchange - the (your purchases, your purchase, it or them) as implied object(s) of return has simply been omitted as unnecessary. Simplified= You can take them to the store to return them.


----------



## Nourished Gourmet

JulianStuart said:


> It seems fine as it is: you are the one who will return or exchange - the (your purchases, your purchase, it or them) as implied object(s) of return has simply been omitted as unnecessary. Simplified= You can take them to the store to return them.



Well, obviously that was a cheesy example for me to get my point across. You might then want to consider this other one sourced from such an internationally known company as Epson:
_
We regret that it is not always possible to estimate when out-of-stock items will *return to stock*..._
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/Help/PlacingOrder.jsp?Category=Help

The only thing is that, as JamesM pointed up in Post #34, when an item is resupplied, it's more typical to say that it is restocked or that it has come back in stock or inventory, as long as "return or be returned to stock" specifically means in business that the item was sent from stock to another location, and subsequently was returned and placed back in stock. Aside _of_ that (= in addition to that), this example could not be rephrased as "when out-of-stock items will be _returned to stock_", it just wouldn't sound appropriate here. A reason I thought of for which some companies prefer to use 'return to stock" to "come back in stock", "restock", or "stock again", is that "return (to stock)" sounds like a more formal option and is more commonly used in written English than "come back", _par exemple_.


----------



## JulianStuart

Well, that one's pretty cheesy too 
Aside _from_ that, it is abundantly clear, from the preceding "out-of-stock" descriptor, that the "return to stock" means "return to (a condition of being in) stock" - so it's another ellipsis, simpler short form where there is no possibility of ambiguity.  Don't you just love the flexibility of the English language  Pretty wild with such ellipses providing lots of possibilities of exceptions to irritate those who love "rules"


----------



## Nourished Gourmet

Sure. Then, would you find any fault if I say:

_I already requested to be alerted by email if and when this item returns to stock _(= in case it is returned to stock and becomes available again for sale).


----------



## JulianStuart

Nourished Gourmet said:


> Sure. Then, will your love for "rules" find any fault if I say:
> 
> _I already requested to be alerted by email if and when this item returns to stock _(= in case it is returned to stock and becomes available again for sale).



I _like _the ability to bend the "rules" - or I see the variations created by _different contexts_ as showing "shadings" of usage.  

It would depend on the context for your sentence. In a conversation/email dialogue with Epson, it would be understood by _them_ as carrying _your _intended meaning (if, by "returned to stock" in your parenthetical comment, you mean "returned to a condition of being in stock" - as they use the phrase)


----------



## Nourished Gourmet

Very well then. So, I take it you wouldn't find any fault either if I say:

_I already requested to be alerted by email if and when this item *returns*_ (= in case it is returned from supply or from some customer, and so -- whatever the case -- it has returned to stock and become available again for sale).

Would you?


----------



## JulianStuart

If they already understand that all the possibilities in your parentheses are covered, for example by previous context-setting conversation, when you use the simple word "returns", you will get your email when they have the item again  I wouldn't say it, I'd say something like "... item is available (or in stock) (again)."


----------



## Nourished Gourmet

Well, sounds like that wraps it all up! Thanks a lot for your insightful comments, JulianStuart, and to the rest of you for your most helpful contribution to this thread.


----------

