Pedants' Paradise

[oddoneout]

I think we should say whatever sounds natural at the time. Otherwise we must say, for example:

The newly wed couple went on its honeymoon.

My spaghetti are tasty.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/170/was-the-usage-spaghetti-were-ever-acceptable-or-common

[Bryn]

I think we should say whatever sounds natural at the time. Otherwise we must say, for example:

The newly wed couple went on its honeymoon.

My spaghetti are tasty.

Let's not get started on a panino or two.

[LeMartinPecheur]

I was taught that a collective noun takes the singular. R3 announcers seem to have abandoned that for the most part, which I find jars. It's another case of language changes over time I suspect and will/has largely become the norm. This I found interesting for dealing with what comes after. http://learnersdictionary.com/qa/Col...Verb-Agreement

I was taught that if the collective was acting together it was singular, but the plural is permissible, maybe even required, if the emphasis is on its disunity.

Thus, 'The electorate is fully behind the PM' but "The electorate are completely at odds with each other". (No reference intended to current state of the nation of course...)

[ahinton]

Let's not get started on a panino or two.

...to say nothing of Maurizio Pollino, as he was once portrayed on the Steinway artists' list (along with Yonti Solomon)...

[LeMartinPecheur]

.

... what is your agenda here?

.

There was no agendum whatsoever in my post #4505!

[Serial_Apologist]

I was taught that if the collective was acting together it was singular, but the plural is permissible, maybe even required, if the emphasis is on its disunity.

Thus, 'The electorate is fully behind the PM' but "The electorate are completely at odds with each other". (No reference intended to current state of the nation of course...)

And yet, "the electorate is completely at odds with itself" coould be scarcely more applicable today!

[vinteuil]

I was taught that if the collective was acting together it was singular, but the plural is permissible, maybe even required, if the emphasis is on its disunity.

Thus, 'The electorate is fully behind the PM' but "The electorate are completely at odds with each other". (No reference intended to current state of the nation of course...)

... a pedant might prefer 'completely at odds with one another', given that there are more than two of them.

.

[Serial_Apologist]

... a pedant might prefer 'completely at odds with one another', given that there are more than two of them.

.

As a general condition, yes; but one can only be in verbal disagreement with one person at a time!

[vinteuil]

As a general condition, yes; but one can only be in verbal disagreement with one person at a time!

... you haven't been at chucking-out time at certain pubs I know!

And in the current electoral mess - many people I know are in disagreement with many other people and other people's views at the same time - a plague on all their houses.




.

[Serial_Apologist]

... you haven't been at chucking-out time at certain pubs I know!


.

[LezLee]

Searched in vain for pictures of 'Sheffield Trains Suspended' ('Sheffield Star') but they were all shown on the (somewhat damp) tracks as usual.

[Serial_Apologist]

Searched in vain for pictures of 'Sheffield Trains Suspended' ('Sheffield Star') but they were all shown on the (somewhat damp) tracks as usual.

Yes but the heading would have been over the top!

[Richard Tarleton]

I'm two thirds of the way through Max Hastings's masterly book on the Vietnam War.

I'm struck by his avoidance of the word "and". Dozens of examples so far - when he lists three things, as he often does, he simply puts commas between them, e.g. (one I've made up) "guns, grenades, helicopters." No "and", with or without Oxford comma. Haven't noticed it in his books before, or elsewhere.

[Pulcinella]

I'm two thirds of the way through Max Hastings's masterly book on the Vietnam War.

I'm struck by his avoidance of the word "and". Dozens of examples so far - when he lists three things, as he often does, he simply puts commas between them, e.g. (one I've made up) "guns, grenades, helicopters." No "and", with or without Oxford comma. Haven't noticed it in his books before, or elsewhere.

I spotted this in at least one other book recently (forget which and who they were by) and rather liked it: gives the impression of the list not being exhaustive, for one thing.

[Richard Tarleton]

Indeed, I'm certainly not objecting to it, just new to me.