I swear British English (The Queen's Colonial Best) calls for "Apple is an extraordinary company" and "I am going to the hospital"... It's all those riff-raff in Britain that have fracked things up, if what you are saying is true. The Queen's Colonial Best also calls for "I will be writing to Apple to complain" rather than the US version of "I will be writing Apple to complain".
Correct.
Although, colloquially, in the North West (Lancashire, Yorkshire...) where I live, it's not unusual to drop words like 'the' or 'to' or just replace them with 't' orally and it spills over into written English with children to. It's very annoying explaining it to them.
edit: And with regard to using collective nouns, we use both 'are' and 'is'. It depends on the context. We'd use 'Apple are a great company' to refer to Apple as a whole entity formally however, we'd use 'Apple is comprised of many great people' to refer to the individuals that make up Apple. We'd also might say 'Apple is stupid' as it's rude. It's kind of like in French or Japanese where there's a polite way to refer to a company or group and an impolite way. That's changing though as American English invades.
IIRC Americans just simplify the language to the 'is' form to refer to either and drop any context or formal deference. That might be partly why many British find Americans rude.
Well, what I said is right. If you watch the BBC you will see for yourself. They refer to companies, and institutions in the plural. Peerhaps that's not technically correct over there, but it's how it's spoken, and usually written.
Well, if you hear someone on the BBC using a plural for a company, then they wrong
- just shows that the BBC ain't wot is used to be! Know wot I mean? Innit?
It's nothing to do with British English vs American English
- a company is singular because it is a single legal entity
- and the fact that a company contains many people is irrelevant, no matter which side of the Atlantic you happen to live on.
- to say 'Apple are' or 'Microsoft are' is as wrong as saying 'the train are full of people'
It's not just the BBC that has learned how not to speak English properly - even our beloved Prime Minister will try to adopt a colloquial accent when he wants to sound cool - like saying 'be''er' instead of 'be'tt'er'. Or as you Americans would say 'Be'dd'er'.
There is no such thing as "coming up with a language". Languages evolve from other languages. Most of the quirks of British English are from other languages, primarily French.
Well, if you hear someone on the BBC using a plural for a company, then they wrong
- just shows that the BBC ain't wot is used to be! Know wot I mean? Innit?
It's nothing to do with British English vs American English
- a company is singular because it is a single legal entity
- and the fact that a company contains many people is irrelevant, no matter which side of the Atlantic you happen to live on.
- to say 'Apple are' or 'Microsoft are' is as wrong as saying 'the train are full of people'
It's not just the BBC that has learned how not to speak English properly - even our beloved Prime Minister will try to adopt a colloquial accent when he wants to sound cool - like saying 'be''er' instead of 'be'tt'er'. Or as you Americans would say 'Be'dd'er'.
I go by usage. What is considered to be correct is no longer correct if few are using it. That's how language evolves.
Take the word "fun". I don't know about how you see it over there, but over here, its usage is changing.
"It's so fun." has become common. I don't like it. But, even teachers are using it. Parents who want to be seen as cool are using it. It's wrong. But, perhaps, in another 10 or 20 years, it won't be.
Accents are different. The word usage, or grammar, isn't changing.
As Aegis has pointed out, companies and institutions are referred to in the collective, that's why they are using plurals.
What ever happened to gramatically correct typing? 'I might have forgotten just who Microsoft are..." try, please, 'I might have forgotten just who Microsoft is...'
Interesting point you make, which is always the subject of much discussion. But whatever happened to correct spelling? Shouldn't that be 'grammatically'?
Interesting point you make, which is always the subject of much discussion. But whatever happened to correct spelling? Shouldn't that be 'grammatically'?
When can we get back to bitchin' about how crap Zune is, or wondering when the 'true-video-ipod' will be released - that's wot I want to know!
When the Wiki says,"This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject." You should operate with a high degree of skepticism...
That's become boring. This is much more interesting.
Well thank you, melgross, nothing like sparking a debate by speaking one's mind. Off topic, yes - apologies, but at least it went off in some interesting directions!
That's become boring. This is much more interesting.
Ok then...
When I was a wee laddie at school in Scotland, we had it drummed into us that collective nouns were singular
- perhaps that was just a Scottish-English thing, and not an English-English thing. Until today I hadn't realised that there was a different treatment of collective nouns between American-English and English-English (and possibly Scottish-English)
- and perhaps American-English is closer to Scottish-English in some respects?
But, anyway, I'd argue that a company name such as 'Apple' or 'Microsoft' is not a collective noun
- since the company name refers to a single legal entity - a 'company' that has, under (English and I presume US) Law, the legal status of an individual. It's a separate singular entity, not a plurality of entities. So it should be referred to in the singular.
When we refer to 'Microsoft' in the plural (e.g. 'Microsoft' are a monopoly) we're just using the plural because we know there's more than one person in Microsoft. But I'm sure my Scottish-English teacher would have ticked me off for such a slovenly use of language!
When I was a wee laddie at school in Scotland, we had it drummed into us that collective nouns were singular
- perhaps that was just a Scottish-English thing, and not an English-English thing. Until today I hadn't realised that there was a different treatment of collective nouns between American-English and English-English (and possibly Scottish-English)
- and perhaps American-English is closer to Scottish-English in some respects?
But, anyway, I'd argue that a company name such as 'Apple' or 'Microsoft' is not a collective noun
- since the company name refers to a single legal entity - a 'company' that has under (English law, and I presume US Law) the legal status of a individual. It's a separate singular entity, not a plurality of entities. So it should be referred to in the singular.
When we refer to 'Microsoft' in the plural (e.g. 'Microsoft' are a monopoly) we're just using the plural because we know there's more than one person in Microsoft. But I'm sure my Scottish-English teacher would have ticked me off for such a slovenly use of language!
From what I know, corporations are treated as an individual, legally a "person", pretty much everywhere around the world, though there might be exceptions. I can't think of a convenient way to deal with them any other way.
But, aside from that, there is a cultural imperative at work as well. I don't know how other kanguages deal with it, but in England, at least, institutions seem to be thought of a a unit composed of individuals, therefore the plural. I will read something such as "Apple are", rather than "Apple is".
Dropping the "the" is also interesting. "Going to hospital". We would say "going to the hospital".
But, we would say "Going to college". On the other hand, we would say "Going to the university", when they would say "Going to university".
It seems as though we have a different way of being specific, rather than general.
When they drop the "the" is it because they mean a specific place, even though it isn't stated? We often seem to ignore that.
If sales have actually been strong for AppleTV, color me surprised.
I expect Apple to have a higher than usual number of returns on these once people realize that a lot of video from outside the iTunes Store won't play on it, or that it won't hook up to their TV, etc. It was a great idea, but Apple really fell through on the specs.
Dropping the "the" is also interesting. "Going to hospital". We would say "going to the hospital".
But, we would say "Going to college". On the other hand, we would say "Going to the university", when they would say "Going to university".
It seems as though we have a different way of being specific, rather than general.
When they drop the "the" is it because they mean a specific place, even though it isn't stated? We often seem to ignore that.
When I was in Japan a while back, I had a conversation with someone who had the job of writing English versions of the company's manuals. She asked me about when to use 'the' and when it was ok not to. e.g. 'now press the F1 key' or 'now press F1' - both seem ok to me
and 'now press F1 key' or 'now press the F1' both seem wrong
the way I explained it was that 'the' was necessary to convey the meaning of a specific object, and not when the object was more general
- i.e. countable vs non-countable
- e.g. pass the water, have some water
etc
Unfortunately, her English wasn't good enough to understand my explanation, and my Japanese was/is even worse!
Comments
I swear British English (The Queen's Colonial Best) calls for "Apple is an extraordinary company" and "I am going to the hospital"... It's all those riff-raff in Britain that have fracked things up, if what you are saying is true. The Queen's Colonial Best also calls for "I will be writing to Apple to complain" rather than the US version of "I will be writing Apple to complain".
Correct.
Although, colloquially, in the North West (Lancashire, Yorkshire...) where I live, it's not unusual to drop words like 'the' or 'to' or just replace them with 't' orally and it spills over into written English with children to. It's very annoying explaining it to them.
edit: And with regard to using collective nouns, we use both 'are' and 'is'. It depends on the context. We'd use 'Apple are a great company' to refer to Apple as a whole entity formally however, we'd use 'Apple is comprised of many great people' to refer to the individuals that make up Apple. We'd also might say 'Apple is stupid' as it's rude. It's kind of like in French or Japanese where there's a polite way to refer to a company or group and an impolite way. That's changing though as American English invades.
IIRC Americans just simplify the language to the 'is' form to refer to either and drop any context or formal deference. That might be partly why many British find Americans rude.
I just hope the Superbowl ad(s?) won't just focus on the AppleTv, and the iPhone, assuming they mention the phone at all.
I'd like to see some new product. This is the first Macworld where we had almost nothing from Apple.
Me too. *wipes tear from eye* Me Too.
Well, what I said is right. If you watch the BBC you will see for yourself. They refer to companies, and institutions in the plural. Peerhaps that's not technically correct over there, but it's how it's spoken, and usually written.
Well, if you hear someone on the BBC using a plural for a company, then they wrong
- just shows that the BBC ain't wot is used to be! Know wot I mean? Innit?
It's nothing to do with British English vs American English
- a company is singular because it is a single legal entity
- and the fact that a company contains many people is irrelevant, no matter which side of the Atlantic you happen to live on.
- to say 'Apple are' or 'Microsoft are' is as wrong as saying 'the train are full of people'
It's not just the BBC that has learned how not to speak English properly - even our beloved Prime Minister will try to adopt a colloquial accent when he wants to sound cool - like saying 'be''er' instead of 'be'tt'er'. Or as you Americans would say 'Be'dd'er'.
It's nothing to do with British English vs American English
- a company is singular because it is a single legal entity
- and the fact that a company contains many people is irrelevant, no matter which side of the Atlantic you happen to live on.
- to say 'Apple are' or 'Microsoft are' is as wrong as saying 'the train are full of people'
Nope. "Apple are" and "Apple is" are both correct.
and came up with the language in the first place
There is no such thing as "coming up with a language". Languages evolve from other languages. Most of the quirks of British English are from other languages, primarily French.
Nope. "Apple are" and "Apple is" are both correct.
Why?
Why?
Because English grammar is defined that way? Because things simply have evolved to this over the millennia?
Because English grammar is defined that way? Because things simply have evolved to this over the millennia?
Hmm, my company are small, whereas Microsoft are large!
Hmm, my company are small, whereas Microsoft are large!
It doesn't work with "my company", because that's not a proper name.
Well, if you hear someone on the BBC using a plural for a company, then they wrong
- just shows that the BBC ain't wot is used to be! Know wot I mean? Innit?
It's nothing to do with British English vs American English
- a company is singular because it is a single legal entity
- and the fact that a company contains many people is irrelevant, no matter which side of the Atlantic you happen to live on.
- to say 'Apple are' or 'Microsoft are' is as wrong as saying 'the train are full of people'
It's not just the BBC that has learned how not to speak English properly - even our beloved Prime Minister will try to adopt a colloquial accent when he wants to sound cool - like saying 'be''er' instead of 'be'tt'er'. Or as you Americans would say 'Be'dd'er'.
I go by usage. What is considered to be correct is no longer correct if few are using it. That's how language evolves.
Take the word "fun". I don't know about how you see it over there, but over here, its usage is changing.
"It's so fun." has become common. I don't like it. But, even teachers are using it. Parents who want to be seen as cool are using it. It's wrong. But, perhaps, in another 10 or 20 years, it won't be.
Accents are different. The word usage, or grammar, isn't changing.
As Aegis has pointed out, companies and institutions are referred to in the collective, that's why they are using plurals.
What ever happened to gramatically correct typing? 'I might have forgotten just who Microsoft are..." try, please, 'I might have forgotten just who Microsoft is...'
Interesting point you make, which is always the subject of much discussion. But whatever happened to correct spelling? Shouldn't that be 'grammatically'?
Interesting point you make, which is always the subject of much discussion. But whatever happened to correct spelling? Shouldn't that be 'grammatically'?
When can we get back to bitchin' about how crap Zune is, or wondering when the 'true-video-ipod' will be released - that's wot I want to know!
When can we get back to bitchin' about how crap Zune is, or wondering when the 'true-video-ipod' will be released - that's wot I want to know!
That's become boring. This is much more interesting.
Or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language
When the Wiki says,"This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject." You should operate with a high degree of skepticism...
That's become boring. This is much more interesting.
Well thank you, melgross, nothing like sparking a debate by speaking one's mind. Off topic, yes - apologies, but at least it went off in some interesting directions!
That's become boring. This is much more interesting.
Ok then...
When I was a wee laddie at school in Scotland, we had it drummed into us that collective nouns were singular
- perhaps that was just a Scottish-English thing, and not an English-English thing. Until today I hadn't realised that there was a different treatment of collective nouns between American-English and English-English (and possibly Scottish-English)
- and perhaps American-English is closer to Scottish-English in some respects?
But, anyway, I'd argue that a company name such as 'Apple' or 'Microsoft' is not a collective noun
- since the company name refers to a single legal entity - a 'company' that has, under (English and I presume US) Law, the legal status of an individual. It's a separate singular entity, not a plurality of entities. So it should be referred to in the singular.
When we refer to 'Microsoft' in the plural (e.g. 'Microsoft' are a monopoly) we're just using the plural because we know there's more than one person in Microsoft. But I'm sure my Scottish-English teacher would have ticked me off for such a slovenly use of language!
Ok then...
When I was a wee laddie at school in Scotland, we had it drummed into us that collective nouns were singular
- perhaps that was just a Scottish-English thing, and not an English-English thing. Until today I hadn't realised that there was a different treatment of collective nouns between American-English and English-English (and possibly Scottish-English)
- and perhaps American-English is closer to Scottish-English in some respects?
But, anyway, I'd argue that a company name such as 'Apple' or 'Microsoft' is not a collective noun
- since the company name refers to a single legal entity - a 'company' that has under (English law, and I presume US Law) the legal status of a individual. It's a separate singular entity, not a plurality of entities. So it should be referred to in the singular.
When we refer to 'Microsoft' in the plural (e.g. 'Microsoft' are a monopoly) we're just using the plural because we know there's more than one person in Microsoft. But I'm sure my Scottish-English teacher would have ticked me off for such a slovenly use of language!
From what I know, corporations are treated as an individual, legally a "person", pretty much everywhere around the world, though there might be exceptions. I can't think of a convenient way to deal with them any other way.
But, aside from that, there is a cultural imperative at work as well. I don't know how other kanguages deal with it, but in England, at least, institutions seem to be thought of a a unit composed of individuals, therefore the plural. I will read something such as "Apple are", rather than "Apple is".
Dropping the "the" is also interesting. "Going to hospital". We would say "going to the hospital".
But, we would say "Going to college". On the other hand, we would say "Going to the university", when they would say "Going to university".
It seems as though we have a different way of being specific, rather than general.
When they drop the "the" is it because they mean a specific place, even though it isn't stated? We often seem to ignore that.
If sales have actually been strong for AppleTV, color me surprised.
I expect Apple to have a higher than usual number of returns on these once people realize that a lot of video from outside the iTunes Store won't play on it, or that it won't hook up to their TV, etc. It was a great idea, but Apple really fell through on the specs.
Dropping the "the" is also interesting. "Going to hospital". We would say "going to the hospital".
But, we would say "Going to college". On the other hand, we would say "Going to the university", when they would say "Going to university".
It seems as though we have a different way of being specific, rather than general.
When they drop the "the" is it because they mean a specific place, even though it isn't stated? We often seem to ignore that.
When I was in Japan a while back, I had a conversation with someone who had the job of writing English versions of the company's manuals. She asked me about when to use 'the' and when it was ok not to. e.g. 'now press the F1 key' or 'now press F1' - both seem ok to me
and 'now press F1 key' or 'now press the F1' both seem wrong
the way I explained it was that 'the' was necessary to convey the meaning of a specific object, and not when the object was more general
- i.e. countable vs non-countable
- e.g. pass the water, have some water
etc
Unfortunately, her English wasn't good enough to understand my explanation, and my Japanese was/is even worse!