Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If it's a contract, I'd use "site unseen". "Sight" can be argued: what has been sighted (a boat, a house, a dog)?
Course you can (and correct) - you're combining both forms though, the thread topic is site unseen OR sight unseenYes, but you can buy the site sight unseen
I merely stated my preference IF it's a contract and I cant use "car sight unseen" (less gap for misinterpretation = better).Nothing to do with contracts or law, it's the English language in all its quirkiness
You wouldn't say ''I bought it car unseen''
OK, so I'm a whinger and a pedant (great combination!!)
But I've noticed that both "site unseen" and "sight unseen" are used to describe buying something (particularly property, obviously) without viewing it.
My preference is "site unseen" - as in, "I haven't seen the site".
But I can also understand "sight unseen", particularly for a non-property purchase, like a vehicle. As in, "I haven't had a sight of [thing]".
So which is it?
Yes; there are more important things to worry about (option 3 in poll).
Lets all just use the spellchecker, just use the calculator, just think about going on a diet and just think about doing some exercise, just turn up for work a few minutes late each day and leave a couple of minutes early, who cares about one ciggy butt out the window....etc.
Let's just undermine all the great things we humans have created - like the English language for one - by stealth and laziness and indifference.
For the record, I voted "sight unseen" - using the context of the visual as is the traditional use of that term.
You can use "site unseen" as well of course as it relates to a property site.
Where it would be incorrect is in the use of say; buying a car on ebay - it would need to be "sight unseen".
But who cares, right?
OK, so I'm a whinger and a pedant (great combination!!)
But I've noticed that both "site unseen" and "sight unseen" are used to describe buying something (particularly property, obviously) without viewing it.
My preference is "site unseen" - as in, "I haven't seen the site".
In both cases, "site" or "sight" is acting as a noun, substituting for "the thing you bought", so I don't see how "site unseen" is any worse than "sight unseen", grammatically. Or am I missing your point?No, if you haven't sighted the site. It's sight unseen. Or an "unseen site". It's never a "site unseen" - that's bad grammar. In this case it would be written "...[a] site that is unseen".
In both cases, "site" or "sight" is acting as a noun, substituting for "the thing you bought", so I don't see how "site unseen" is any worse than "sight unseen", grammatically. Or am I missing your point?
I'm going to disagree; I'm with WinstonWolfe (has to happen now and again ).Sight is a verb in this case.
Nah, it's sight as a noun, as in "a sight for sore eyes", or a tourist attraction. The sight - ie the appearance of the object in question - wasn't seen before purchasing, so you bought "sight unseen".
Interestingly, the word combination is treated as an adverb, as it qualifies the verb of purchasing.
Hmm. So is it an adverb or an idiom? I'm going to say idiom, and thus "site unseen" is NOT an idiom, therefore, "sight unseen" is correct.
In all honesty, I don't really give a crap, but it's fun to argue once in a while.
Either is right...or wrong...depending on how you want to look at it. However, i think this is the least of the gramatical errors that REA's and Marketers need to look at. You would swear that many of them never had a high school education.
OK. That would be a phrasal verb used as an idiom. Hmm didn't know that.
What were you doing to dig this old thread up?