Is it natural?

[Temico]

Originally Posted by ponpoco256

Congrats, temico! This time you use "it's high time" correctly.

"This time you use "it's high time" correctly."??.......ha ha ha.......typical "Doraemon" Japlish....ha ha ha................!!

[ponpoco256]

Originally Posted by Temico

"This time you use "it's high time" correctly."??.......ha ha ha.......typical "Doraemon" Japlish....ha ha ha................!!

I understand "ha ha ha" (the great grammarian Rusty Chomsky would say it is a correct English phrase), but I can't get what you mean by "typical Doraemon Japlish". I suppose it would be a kind of Hong Kong's dialectal phrase.

ponpoco

[Temico]

Originally Posted by ponpoco256

I understand "ha ha ha" (the great grammarian Rusty Chomsky would say it is a correct English phrase), but I can't get what you mean by "typical Doraemon Japlish". I suppose it would be a kind of Hong Kong's dialectal phrase.

ponpoco

.....but I can't get what you mean by "typical Doraemon Japlish".

Ha ha ha...........it's beyond "Doraemon's" Japlish, so it seems, unfortunately!!

[plin]

Come on guys! Christmas is around the corner. If you keep going like this, what's left to say to each other in those Christmas cards?

Plin

[teleostomi]

I might as well add my two cents worth :-)
Having lived in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, England and the United States, I have heard oughtn't, mustn't and shouldn't. They all sound natural to me. Oughtn't and shouldn't have the same meaning. Mustn't means you are not allowed to do something. As for the school notice, neither shouldn't nor mustn't sound strong enough language to me. I think it is more likely that a sign would say, "Firearms are not allowed in school."

Interesting! It's a-million-dollar info for me
So, is it OK to assume that we can replace "ought to" by "should" whenever it appears? Whenever I hear the word "ought to" by a British speaker, it makes me wonder why the speaker chose "ought to" instead of "should" or "have to."