I recently wrote the followng sentence:
The waitress came over, took their drink orders, and left.
There are two of them and they ordered drinks. But re-reading the sentence, I changed it to:
The waitress came over, took their drinks order, and left.
Two drinks, one order. Right?
I believe that either could be correct, depending on region/country. I've heard both ways in various locales.
Two drinks, one order. Right?
Insufficient information. One check or separate checks?
Even if they are eating together, if they ask for separate checks, it's two different orders.
Two drinks, one order. Right?
Insufficient information. One check or separate checks?
Even if they are eating together, if they ask for separate checks, it's two different orders.
Hmmm, What have the checks to do with the order(s)?
If both order their drink separately it's two orders, if one of them orders both drinks, it's only one order. That's independent of what is ordered – same drink or different drinks. If they finally tell the waitress to put it all on one check or if they pay separately does not change the original order.
Even if one orders his drink and the other just says "Me too" it's still two orders.
HM.
Insufficient information. One check or separate checks?
Even if they are eating together, if they ask for separate checks, it's two different orders.
I'm pretty sure, based purely on personal experiences, that it's "drink orders". It's not two drinks that the waitress is focused on, it's the orders—especially if she doesn't yet know how the bill will eventually be split.
Both work. Drinks order, it's one order. Drink orders. Both customers are ordering their individual drinks, two orders, drink is the adjective.
Maybe, the former makes me think one of them is picking up the check, the second I see it separate bills. That's just inferring looking for a difference.
When a waitress/waiter asks what someone at a table wants, they are taking that person's order. So, multiple orders can be attached to the same bill. The use of "drink orders" is fine.
Google:
"drink order" - 1,080,000
"drink orders" - 942,000
"drinks orders" - 369,000
"drinks order" - 277,000
;-)
AJ
Okay, whereas "drinks order" may be grammatically correct, it is very awkward to say and read. Based PURELY on that I would avoid it.
Now when a waiter comes over they aren't asking to take their "drinks order". Even when you have a full table the waiter would ask "What would you like to drink?" The waiter is treating the ENTIRE table as ONE order. I spent 10+ years as a waiter so I've got lots of experience there (and I'm sure lots of others do). It doesn't matter how many drinks are ordered, or even if there is one bill or two, the entire table is treated as a single order. The order is put into the system as a single order. A manager would tell the waiter "go put in their order". In this case the table, even having more than one occupant, is treated as a singular noun.
With THAT being said ... you actually wouldn't put anything plural. It would simply be..
The waitress came over, took their drink order, and left.
The waitress came over, took their drink order, and left.
That's very interesting. It actually sounds right.
But since there's a doubt, I ended up changing it to avoid any confusion. Good advice for authors, btw. For anyone interested, this is what it's currently (btw, it's New Years Eve 1945):
The waitress came over wearing a cardboard tiara with the numerical 1945 on the front. They both ordered a drink, Boyd a scotch and Pearl a vodka tonic. The waitress left.
Thanks, everyone.
I think you're overthinking it. That sounds rather fussy to me.
The waitress came over wearing a cardboard tiara with the numerical 1945 on the front.
What was she wearing when she left?
'Numerical' is an adjective. Why not 'number', or why describe it at all?
The waitress left.
As opposed to stripping her clothes off and lying on the table? I think you can imply she left by later mentioning her subsequent return with the drinks.
NB We have very different styles of writing so my comments may well be misspoken.
AJ
I think you can imply she left by later mentioning her subsequent return with the drinks.
A long time ago I was in a critique group and got feedback on a short story I wrote. In the story, the characters were outside the front door of the mansion. Then I described the marble floor and other things inside. The implication was they went inside. The feedback was that I didn't get them inside.
Implying can be tricky. What's clear in the author's mind may not be in the reader's.
Implying can be tricky. What's clear in the author's mind may not be in the reader's.
That can go the other way around too, with readers jumping to a conclusion the author did not intend.
A long time ago I was in a critique group and got feedback on a short story I wrote.
One should always be cautious of Writing Group critiques. Whenever everyone submits something, everyone feels obligated to list something, and you get extra points (within the group) for the sheer number of critiques you list (bragging rights). As a result, while many are valid, a good number are utterly meaningless! The key, as always, is parsing the wheat from the chaff.
Generally, in these situations, I typically go for the least non-essential data possible, and then see whether my editors object when something they were expecting isn't there. (Not that I listen, in any regard!) ;)
One should always be cautious of Writing Group critiques
Except it made sense to me when I re-read what I had written with that feedback in mind.
If I remember right, the characters were outside the front door to the mansion and the next paragraph was having them looking around the inside.
If I remember right, the characters were outside the front door to the mansion and the next paragraph was having them looking around the inside.
Yeah, that's clearly a problem, but it's unlike the waitress example. In most instances, aside from the flirting for tips, once a waitress takes your order, you talk with your friends until your food arrives and you can flirt a little more.
In your case, the characters who were transported were what? Magically transported inside while no one was looking?
And I didn't say that writing advice isn't useful, it's just that Writers Groups are notorious for producing a lot of chaff for the few shards of wheat they produce, so you have to carefully filter out the unhelpful and potentially damaging advice. Just because one writer prefers one approach, doesn't make it applicable to your story.
In the story, the characters were outside the front door of the mansion. Then I described the marble floor and other things inside. The implication was they went inside.
Does it make a difference how important the characters are and the POV of the story?
AJ
Does it make a difference how important the characters are and the POV of the story?
It was jarring. It wasn't a scene change. I was a new paragraph.
It was jarring.
That wasn't what I was getting at.
If the waitress is a minor character, it doesn't really matter that she left to take the drink order to the equally unimportant barman who poured the drinks and gave them to the waitress who took them back to the main characters. There's no continuity gap for the main characters.
However, the characters in your house entry scene are main characters, so if you suddenly switch from them standing outside to describing the inside of the house while omitting the ingress, the continuity gap smacks readers across the head with a two by four.
AJ
If the waitress is a minor character, it doesn't really matter that she left to take the drink order to the equally unimportant barman
No, but without saying she left, when the main characters begin talking, the reader would think the waitress was still standing there.
No, but without saying she left, when the main characters begin talking, the reader would think the waitress was still standing there.
If it's a minor character, they likely aren't paying much attention to her. Once she's done her job and the conversation moves elsewhere, the readers attention follows the conversation, not the passing individual. Unless, of course, they have a particularly fine ass!
However, the characters in your house entry scene are main characters, so if you suddenly switch from them standing outside to describing the inside of the house while omitting the ingress, the continuity gap smacks readers across the head with a two by four.
That's as unsettling to having two male characters talking and suddenly switching to feminine pronouns. Although relatively minor typos, it still throws the reader out of the story, forcing them to start again, reimagining everything they've already read up to that point.
That's what a 'continuity gap' is.
It was jarring. It wasn't a scene change. I was a new paragraph.
Easily fixed: "On entering, I noted …"
The waitress left.
And why, pray tell, is the waitress 'leaving' their table a significant story event. She takes the order, and then (magically) the order gets filled. No one really needs to know what the waitress is doing between taking and filling the order.
But that's just my particular ear mite, burrowing into my brain, so feel free to ignore the distress it causes me! But really, it seems like you're searching for somewhere to dump extra words to pad to story in each paragraph. (Not that I'd ever accuse of you that, but that's how it appears when you trip over an unnecessary sentence like that.)
The waitress left.
And why, pray tell, is the waitress 'leaving' their table a significant story event. She takes the order, and then (magically) the order gets filled. No one really needs to know what the waitress is doing between taking and filling the order.
But that's just my particular ear mite, burrowing into my brain, so feel free to ignore the distress it causes me! But really, it seems like you're searching for somewhere to dump extra words to pad to story in each paragraph. (Not that I'd ever accuse of you that, but that's how it appears when you trip over an unnecessary sentence like that.)
Ha ha. Well, if the waitress didn't leave, presumably she's still hanging around, which might get a bit awkward, and likely that drink or drinks order or orders will never get filled.
if the waitress didn't leave, presumably she's still hanging around, which might get a bit awkward, and likely that drink or drinks order or orders will never get filled.
Now that's a significant story issue, whereas the waitress doing her job as expected isn't! ;)
Who pay the bill has no bearing on the number of orders. If each customer is stating what they want to order, then I would use drink orders. If one customer states what they want, I would use drink order.
[drink orders] They are both ordering 1 drink. if they ordered two drinks each, then it still would be [drink orders]. The [drink] is the TYPE of order, the [order] is how many.
In either case, [orders] is correct as there are two people making the orders.
The more I think about it and read what others said, I believe it's:
"took their drink orders." (which was what I originally wrote.)
Why? They each ordered a drink so it was two orders. "Drink" is the type of order.
Waitress ends in s. Does that make her plural?
Waitress ends in double s. That makes her pluplural, ie singular. Just like mistress, actress, distress, witless etc. ;-)
AJ
I read "drink" as an adjective here. I don't think "drinks" works as an adjective. You were right the first time
"I';;have three ouble scotches and a Shirley Temple," is a drink order.
