English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
  1. "The work is done by Mr Miller at the X-Institute."
  2. "The work is done by Mr Miller pro forma associated with the X-Institute."

Mr Miller really belongs to Y-Inc. and never set foot into X-Institute (neither was paid by X-Institute).

"at" is a simple lie, "pro forma associated with" is the truth, but when this shall not be told (plainly), what can be said which is understood as "pro forma associated with" while still spelling "at"?

share|improve this question

closed as not a real question by Matt E. Эллен, MετάEd, Daniel, coleopterist, StoneyB Sep 29 '12 at 17:21

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

What does "pro forma associated with" mean? What are you actually trying to indicate -- if Mr Miller is not associated with X at all, what are you trying to say? – Andrew Leach May 27 '12 at 14:12
I think there is no way to say "done by Mr Miller at the X-Institute" if Miller does not belong to X and never set foot there, because at strongly points to the physical location. Maybe you can say "done by Miller for X-Institute". By the way, the pro forma associated with... part is hard to understand. Do you mean for pro forma to modify done to qualify the nature of the doing, or do you mean in a pro forma association with the X-Institute? – langtechie Jun 13 '12 at 9:23
your question could use some re-formulation, it's kinda vague. – poepje Jun 14 '12 at 21:07

A correct answer can only be arrived at with a precise definition of the association that Mr Miller had with the X-Institute. In the absence of further details "in association with the X-Institute" would suffice.

share|improve this answer

If you mean he was a member of the Y Institute but did this work at the X Institute , then at is entirely correct (though is may not be.) If it was part of his normal duties, at the Y Institute, you would say ... Mr Miller of the Y Institute. If Y commissioned the research from X, you could say 'for Y' instead of/as well as 'at X'. I don't think pro forma can be used in this way, but I'm not entirely certain what you do mean.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.