[rollercoaster375]

Since nobody else has commented on this...

Originally Posted by neiltc13 I have a newsflash for everyone - Apple aren't just building their computers to be some sort of Intel showpiece.

Apple is a /single/ company. Meaning, that that sentence should have been stated:

I have a newsflash for everyone - Apple isn't just building their computers to be some sort of Intel showpiece.

[Kickaha]

In the UK, corporations are treated in language as plural entities, due to the entire concept of needing more than one person to be *incorporated* into one entity.

Ford are going to be producing new cars...

Apple aren't just building their computers...

Burger King truly have the worst burgers around...

It's a cute little quirk they have.

[rollercoaster375]

Originally Posted by Kickaha In the UK, corporations are treated in language as plural entities, due to the entire concept of needing more than one person to be *incorporated* into one entity.

I wasn't aware of that... And I disagree with it It's still a single entity, whether it's composed of multiple people or not. By that logic, I should be refered to as a plural, because I've got multiple organs.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by rollercoaster375 I wasn't aware of that... And I disagree with it It's still a single entity, whether it's composed of multiple people or not. By that logic, I should be refered to as a plural, because I've got multiple organs.

Prove it. Lay em out on the table. I bet you can't put more than *one* on the table.




Mods? Can we get a ruling here? Is UK English allowable on the boards, or is it 'Merican 'Nglish only?

[rollercoaster375]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Prove it. Lay em out on the table. I bet you can't put more than *one* on the table.

I can have my Doctor send you some X-Rays, if you like.

Originally Posted by Kickaha Mods? Can we get a ruling here? Is UK English allowable on the boards, or is it 'Merican 'Nglish only?

I never said it shouldn't be allowed; just that it was wrong .

[Brad]

Originally Posted by rollercoaster375 I never said it shouldn't be allowed; just that it was wrong .

Ding! Best place.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Kickaha In the UK, corporations are treated in language as plural entities

IIRC, that's not specific to UK English (though primarily used there). In any case, just like almost all the other specifics of UK English, it is obviously an asinine concept.

*flees*

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by rollercoaster375 I wasn't aware of that... And I disagree with it It's still a single entity, whether it's composed of multiple people or not. By that logic, I should be refered to as a plural, because I've got multiple organs.

Yup, I are multiple organs.

Everything should be referred to as plural. One day, even a proton will be seen as a number of hydrogen ion.

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by rollercoaster375 I wasn't aware of that... And I disagree with it It's still a single entity, whether it's composed of multiple people or not. By that logic, I should be refered to as a plural, because I've got multiple organs.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you're wrong. The analogy doesn't work: a corporation is a collective noun, while you are not.

Think of the pronouns. You'd be correct to say "It [Apple] is having a good quarter." But you'd also be right to say "They [Apple] are having a good quarter." And the second will sound more natural to most English-speakers, no matter which side of the pond they're from.

Signed,

Graham Mernatsi.

[neiltc13]

I say "Apple are..." because I see Apple as a group of people, not some inanimate machine that churns out computers.

I see any company like this, unless it's a one man business.

[spikeh]

P.S
UK English is the way forward.

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by julesstoop But you had already proven that nobody in this thread agrees with you neiltc13, no need to go over all that again.

What am I, chopped liver?

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by neiltc13 I say "Apple are..." because I see Apple as a group of people, not some inanimate machine that churns out computers. I see any company like this, unless it's a one man business.

I see Apple as a concept. A religious thing. An -ism.

[Brad]

Thread split.

Look at what you started, coaster!

[AWR]

Originally Posted by Brad Thread split. Look at what you started, coaster!

Where the other part at, Brad? [Ebonics]

[Hassan i Sabbah]

While we're at it, what's with 'I could care less'?

You could care less? What, you mean that you care?

Me, I couldn't care less. I could not care less, that is, ah jest don't give a fuuuuck.

[Banana]

Instead of quibbling about how it goes, learn how to appeal to authorities.

Authority is powerful, I tell you.

[BarracksSi]

Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah While we're at it, what's with 'I could care less'?

It's because the "n't" in "couldn't" often gets ghosted, and isn't clearly pronounced. Then, other people begin to think that there was no "n't" in there to begin with. Because they've learned to spell by only paying attention to phonemes, they haven't learned what's really grammatically correct.

It's the same reason that contractions like "he'd" (short for "he would") get bastardized, resulting in infamous phrases like "he be".

And then there's "should of" and "could of"... ugh...

[EmC]

Originally Posted by Banana Instead of quibbling about how it goes, learn how to appeal to authorities. Authority is powerful, I tell you.

Respect my authoritai!

[Wickers]

What I find funny about all this.

In Canada, (as well as many other places in the world) you can incorporate a company with only one person (even on the Federal level). Thus making the entity of the company possibly singular no matter where your English ties are.

[Banana]

Well, considering that corporation is a legal person, it'd be singular anyway...

[drewprops]

ME likes Burger King hamburgers!!
(just don't eat them because they'll kill I from all that cholesterol, don't you know, old chap)

Me am having a hard time with this English stuff.

[709]

Here Here!





I fucking hate it when people do that.

[Banana]

Originally Posted by 709 Here Here!

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Banana Well, considering that corporation is a legal person, it'd be singular anyway...

"The Seattle team is going to win the game."

"The Seattle Mariners are going to win the game.


While the name may be 'plural', it is just a single team, so why the difference?


Because most people say: "The Stanford Cardinal are going to win the game." (They're not the Cardinals, as in birds, they are the Cardinal, as in the color.)

Singular term, plural form.

[RichieB]

While we are talking usage differences, here are a few that drive me daffy:

I detest the politically correct way to say "they" instead of him/her, even when referring to one person.

The second one is the usage of "you" over "one".

The third is the use of "What" over Which.

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by Kickaha In the UK, corporations are treated in language as plural entities, due to the entire concept of needing more than one person to be *incorporated* into one entity. Ford are going to be producing new cars... Apple aren't just building their computers... Burger King truly have the worst burgers around... It's a cute little quirk they have.

Yes, it IS a cute little quirk.

But it does tend to grate on my nerves a bit.

"The team ARE here."

ACK!

Oh please! It just sounds SO wrong.

NO one is more an Anglophile than I; but everyone knows that we Americans have tidied up our mother tongue a bit ( ), and tossed out the most unnecessary quirks, like:

~ double 'L' : 'travelling', for the simpler, less cluttered 'traveling'

~ 'favourite colour' - while charming and quaint, the 'u' is really quite unnecessary

~ 'whilst' - Aw heck. I think that word is SO cool. It makes me think of horse-drawn carriages and cobblestone streets. (And we won't even get 'into' the whole 'spanner, bonnet, lift, loo' controversy. )

But the collective noun thing is a persistent problem. I contend that this (the 'American' way) makes more sense:


The team HAS arrived. (Collective *singular* subject with singular verb!)

The teams HAVE arrived. (Collective plural subject with plural verb.)

To say it the British way ("The team have arrived.") just sounds *wrong*.



(To clarify: With 'great' fondness, I enjoy kidding our British friends. We Americans actually *love* the way you speak, as you probably know. Why do you think that cool little Geico gecko speaks with an English accent? )

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by chucker IIRC, that's not specific to UK English (though primarily used there). In any case, just like almost all the other specifics of UK English, it is obviously an asinine concept. *flees*

Yay!

*pats chucker on back*

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Windswept We Americans actually *love* the way you speak, as you probably know.

That's because it sounds so funny and silly

[Dorian Gray]

I'm British but I went to an American school for a few years, so I'm particularly torn by this. It rubs against my logical nature to refer to a company as "they", but I do it automatically most of the time (as I did in a post a few minutes ago regarding the BBC, before reading this thread: I checked now to be sure!). Other times I happen to use the singular pronoun, probably because of my American education. It's messy and annoying, but there's not much we can do about it. The British/Australians/etc. among us have to tolerate American bastardisations of the language, so I reckon you lot should do us a favour and quit complaining about our peculiarities!