×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

restricted to

restricted to

restricted to

(OP)
What's the rule regarding the use of "restricted to." I keep hearing the Coast Guard report on the radio saying the local bar is "restricted to recreational vessels", usually accompanied by size limits like "40 feet and under. It makes sense since the restriction only applies to the smaller boats. Larger boats and commercial vessels remain unrestricted and may cross the rough bar. But this usage somehow sounds backward to my ear. I'm not alone either, since a quick google on the phrase turned up "restricted to adults only" and "restricted to customers only." I don't think they meant that only kids or the non-customers are allowed. Who is restricted and who isn't?

RE: restricted to

I'm with you, the CG is incorrect in their usage.  They should say:

"Recreational vessels are restricted from..."

or even better

"Recreational vessels are prohibited from..."

RE: restricted to

It's the difference between "Restricted""to small vessels" and "Restricted to""Small vessels".

In the very strictest sense, the Coastguard could argue that what they say is a perfectly correct way of expressing the thing they mean - particularly if "small" is unstressed when they say it.

In anything other than the very strictest sense, I reckon the Coastguard is mad to use a phrase which is so obviously and dangerously ambiguous.

Mint's second suggestion is great if there is statutory force behind the statement.  In this part of the world, I'd expect to see it voiced in terms like "Vessels under 13m in length are advised to avoid...."

A.

RE: restricted to

To restrict is to keep in the limits so the cost guards could also say the traffic of recreation vessels is limited to vessels 40 feet long and under or better vessel 40 feet long and under are forbidden (or not allowed) to sail in this area.

"Restricted to adults only" would be better replaced by only allowed to adults above the age of 18.


"Restricted to customers only" would be better replaced by only costumers are allowed.

Cheers

Luis

RE: restricted to

Huh????

"Restricted" means "limited", by just about every dictionary I can find.  There is NOTHING wrong with "restricted to customers only".  The use of "restricted" to mean "barred" (as in, "You're restricted!  You can't come in!") is a newer evolution that some would consider to be incorrect.

I think I see here a parsing problem.

"The area is restricted to authorized personnel" means "The area is limited to authorized personnel," where "to" is a kind of verbal particle.

But stevenal et al are misreading it as something that could be rephrased as, "To authorized personnel, the area is restricted," with "to" meaning something like "from the viewpoint of".

Hg

Eng-Tips policies:  FAQ731-376

RE: restricted to

(OP)
To clarify, any misreading on my part is purely intentional. It is usually clear from the context what is meant, assuming the listener understands English (and maybe nautical jargon) well.

But the English as a second language folk seeing the sign "The area is restricted/limited to authorized personnel" might assume that unauthorized people remain unrestricted/unlimited in their access. Especially if they've heard the other kind of usage.

An example of the CG usage may be found on page 19 http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2005/MAR0502.pdf. For the landlubbers out there, the bars are restricted (meaning closed) to recreational boats first, since the skippers are assumed to have less experience and their livelihood is unaffected.

Yes they have the authority to enforce the restriction.  

RE: restricted to

Understanding that "limited to authorized personnel" means including and not excluding the authorized personnel is understanding how the word "limited" and associated prepositions are used.  We can't go writing everything for people who don't know the language very well.

The example you cite is a misuse of "restricted".  Except in an "English is as she is spoke" sense (which usually this forum doesn't like to buy as a justification), that usage is just plain wrong.  "Restricted to X" means "only X", not "not X".  The fact that they're misusing it here does not in ANY way make the correct use (almost exactly synonymous with "limited") incorrect.

Just like the increased use of "comprise" to mean "compose" instead of "include" doesn't make the proper use of "comprise" now improper--but that's a whole nother story...

Hg

Eng-Tips policies:  FAQ731-376

RE: restricted to

(OP)
Beginning this thread, I made no assumption as to which use was correct or even more correct; only pointing out that the presence of two forms might be confusing. If the CG usage is incorrect, do you have a source to cite?

RE: restricted to

The CG consistently uses restricted incorrectly in the report cited earlier.  They mean "prohibited".

RE: restricted to

"At no time could we find that we had requested to restrict [Tillamook Bar] to commercial vessels"

In the version of English I have been using all my life this sentence means that they have never requested that only commercial vessels be allowed to cross Tillamook Bar.

But from the context of the report they mean that they have never requested that commercial vessels be not allowed to cross Tillamook Bar.

I think the coast Guard is using dangerously confusing terminology.

Jeff

RE: restricted to

I'd say the word "usage" is missing:

the local bar's usage is "restricted to recreational vessels"

RE: restricted to

Adding more words in front of the incorrect use does not correct it.


RE: restricted to

Adding "the ban on crossing the" in front would make it correct, i.e. "the ban on crossing the local bar is restricted to recreational vessels" or the ban only applies to the recreational vessels.

I agree just saying "the local bar is restricted to recreational vessels" implies that only recreational vessels may use it which is the opposite of the intended meaning.

RE: restricted to

I agree that it may sound ambiguous to someone not used to the radio but I think it may be correct. If the CG wanted to make small vessels stay in the bar area they would of said “the operation of small craft is restricted to the bar area”, this sentence makes the boats the subject of the sentence. The sentence “The bar is restricted to small craft” has the bar being the subject.

OK it has been a while since I took any grammar lessons and I am not going to argue the point because it is obviously confusing otherwise we wouldn’t be debating it but that is the way I understood it. Maybe because I am used to listening to the CG on the VHF .

You have to remember that the Coast Guard is very much aware of ambiguity on the radio and they have evolved their methods with great care knowing that it is often a matter of life or death if they are misunderstood. Most sailors would know that the restriction refers to the bar and the type of craft the CG mentions after that would be the ones that are restricted from going there.

Very rarely would they mention the type of craft that are allowed to do something.
 E.g. you would never hear “there is a small craft advisory in the gulf stream today but craft over 25 feet are allowed”.

RE: restricted to

(OP)
I believe it really is the operation that should be the the subject. The bar doesn't listen to radio reports and recognizes no restrictions placed on it by government authorities.

RE: restricted to

How about - Recreational vessels less than 40 feet must not use / cross / approach the bar.
Clear and direct.

Phitsanulok
Thailand

RE: restricted to

I think you are missing the point. Proper grammar is not important. Talking on the radio follows its’ own rules.  Think of phonetic alphabet, certain abbreviations, proper mike etiquette, channel usage, etc. (We don’t start our daily conversations with ‘roger that’ or finish them with ‘over’.) When I took my captains exam I had to take a separate course on VHF and SSB communications.

It’s the coastguard that writes the book on this subject and we have to understand what they broadcast. I don’t think we can tell the coastguard they are doing something wrong anymore than we would go to a foreign country and tell them you can’t understand their language so speak English.

By the way I do NOT work for the coastguard.
(Not that there is anything wrong with that!!)

RE: restricted to

The military has a long and proud history of mangling language.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies:  FAQ731-376

RE: restricted to

Maybe the Coast Guard needs to take a lesson from the state of Washington.  The following article was in the newspaper recently...

******************
'Plain talk' policies push simple English over jargon
         
By Rachel La Corte
Associated Press

December 17, 2006

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- The average person may find it tough to understand state government, but Washington state officials want to deploy changes to alleviate state personnel's employment of acronyms, jargon and legalese that routinely pervade interfaces with constituents.

Or in plain speak: Talk to the public as you would talk to any other person--simply, and in plain language.

In the 18 months since Gov. Chris Gregoire ordered all state agencies to adopt "plain talk" principles, more than 2,000 state employees have attended classes on writing letters, announcements and documents in everyday language.

So words like "abeyance," "cease" and "utilize" are out, replaced by "suspension," "stop" and "use."

"If people are able to apply for an environmental permit and get it right the first time because they were able to understand it, that's success," said Larisa Benson, director of the Government Management Accountability and Performance system.

When citizens know what the government is asking of them, there's a better chance they'll comply, officials have found.

"Plain talk isn't only rewriting," said Janet Shimabukuro, manager of the department's taxpayer services program. "It's rethinking your approach and really personalizing your message to the audience and to the reader."

Gregoire says it's "a long-overdue initiative, but it's bearing fruit."

Though other states have done some similar work, Washington state is believed to be the first to have a full-scale effort, said Thom Haller, executive director of the non-profit Center for Plain Language in Washington, D.C.

- - -

A simplified form

Old and new versions of a form from Washington state's Department of Licensing:

BEFORE: If you do not wish to purchase 12 month gross weight at the time of renewal, please contact your license agent to determine the fees due for the number of months you wish to purchase. If you are not sure that purchasing 12 months is a good choice for you, please discuss the options with your license agent before purchasing your tabs.

AFTER: To license for less than 12 months, contact a vehicle licensing office to determine the amount due.

--Associated Press
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

RE: restricted to

(OP)
The radio I was speaking of was an ordinary commercial broadcast AM station. The announcer reads the CG provided bar report, evidently with no editing. You will get the same language if you phone in to hear the recorded message. A two way conversation on the VHF would have the potential to clarify the issue; i.e. "yes you may cross" or "no you must not cross."

RE: restricted to

Concerning the belief that it is imperative that consistency and obligatory uninamity in the statutes and limitations be placed upon the typical and atypical aspects of the conveyance of ideas between members of a given society regardless of class and/or occupation, it is not incumbent upon my being to hold the worldview that the whole of civilization must adhere to such principles without regard to custom, tradition, or other local influence and especially without regard to the sanctity of efficient communication between members of a group whose common understanding of explicit and implicit rules and standard practices set them apart from those members of society who do not understand the perceived colloquialisms.

Or something.

Robert

RE: restricted to

(OP)
The radio announcer broadcast the bar restriction again this morning, and I realize that I have left out a word: "The bar is restricted to all recreational boats of 40 feet and under." The first part of this phrase turns up more hits in Google; here is an example: http://www.d13publicaffairs.com/go/doc/21/119285/. I still see examples that seem to have the opposite meaning, though.

Does the word "all" make a difference in anyone's understanding?

RE: restricted to

No, it's still wrong.

That is, if "bar" refers to a piece of geography and not to a restriction.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies:  FAQ731-376

RE: restricted to

Having some experience with small craft on the ocean and in crossing bars subject to tides, I think the Coast Guard is right on.  "Restricted" means "limited" and in rough weather, only small craft could safely cross a bar, whereas larger vessels could get grounded on the bar.  Hence, "restricted to small craft 40 and under."

RE: restricted to

Hopefully you guys who don't know what it means don't own a boat.

If you do then go ahead and party at the bar, it's called Davy Jones Locker.
'Restricted to dead people only!!'

RE: restricted to

Look, restricted means

Quote:

    limited to or admitting only members of a particular group or class

If you use "restricted", and follow it with a list (even a list of one thing), it means that ONLY THE THINGS IN THE LIST ARE ALLOWED.

If you want to list things that are not allowed, use the word "prohibited".

RE: restricted to

(OP)
DwattedWabbit,

So why did the the CG escort the small recreational boat back to port in the PR I linked above?

This is precisely the misunderstanding I am concerned about. It is true that not all bar crossings are maintained for deep draft vessels, but depth only changes significantly with tide level, not the weather. Larger boats and more experienced commercial skippers are more likely to cross a rough bar without incident.

RE: restricted to

Can't say that I know.  Maybe it is a misuse of the word "restricted" by the Coast Guard.  They're human, too, and subject to errors.  Maybe crossing a bar in rough weather is better with a larger vessel (if draft isn't much of an issue) because it will not get tossed around as readily as a smaller vessel, strange or rogue waves perhaps being more likely over a bar where conflicting currents may meet.

RE: restricted to

Dwatted's post just proves the point really.

Although once you've read the full reports, the NTSB and USCG documents linked above clearly intended the phrase to prohibit small boat traffic, here is an experienced user who can understand the instruction to mean the exact opposite, and adduce enough supporting evidence to get his assumption through a sanity check.

The whole point of radio language (Plaindress, Prowords and all that) is to try to get as much traffic as possible sent using a limited vocabulary which has been chosen beforehand, tested against a varied audience, and found to be unambiguous both when heard by a mixed audience, and also when misheard.

I can't imagine "restricted to" passing that test, and I don't remember ever having heard it used on this side of the pond in any R/T context; aviation, marine, civil or military.

A.

RE: restricted to

Well, like the Coast Guard press release said, check with the Coast Guard if you are in the least bit uncertain, and do some homework before you go out there.  There's no excuse for not knowing what the signs and signals mean, for not having your radio on, and for not being familiar with your new boat.  Just like when I get into an unfamiliar car, I sit there for a few minutes and look for all of the controls, switches, buttons, and other things, so that if I break down or come into an emergency situation, I'm not hunting desperately in the dark for the four-way flashers or the horn.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources