Originally posted by Old Grumpy
View Post
Pedants' Paradise
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
Originally posted by french frank View PostTry again tomorrow: we might have something more by then :-)Last edited by LMcD; 02-08-24, 16:22.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Pulcinella View PostHaving said I'm happy with singular media, here's an instance where I'd certainly have used a plural verb, as different social media are presumably intended:
'A polarisation engine’: how social media has created a ‘perfect storm’ for UK’s far-right riots
(The Guardian)
I think I may have moved round to the concept of the influence of social media as being a contemporary phenomenon (rather than phenomena). So social media is a curse of our times, single in its destructive force. Though some of them seem harmless enough on the surfaceIt isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View PostWe seem to be in a situation of dither, like 'the government'. The government is united in its determination ..., the government is split on whether .... But, the government are planning a new initiative, the government have taken steps to deal with ...
I think I may have moved round to the concept of the influence of social media as being a contemporary phenomenon (rather than phenomena). So social media is a curse of our times, single in its destructive force. Though some of them seem harmless enough on the surface
But yes, very like the government, ha ha! Singular when determined, plural when one department can blame another!
Comment
-
-
Although plural in form "media" has become a collective noun like "team", "government", "police", "staff" etc. They can be thought of as a unit and followed by a singular verb or individuals and followed by a plural verb.
English has the flexibility to communicate this meaning and think of a noun from this semantic angle and override the usual syntactic requirement of singular noun + singular verb. German, for instance, is strict on this. We happily say "The team are ..." but no German would say "Die Mannschaft sind ...". I think most languages are similar.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by gurnemanz View PostAlthough plural in form "media" has become a collective noun like "team", "government", "police", "staff" etc. They can be thought of as a unit and followed by a singular verb or individuals and followed by a plural verb.
English has the flexibility to communicate this meaning and think of a noun from this semantic angle and override the usual syntactic requirement of singular noun + singular verb. German, for instance, is strict on this. We happily say "The team are ..." but no German would say "Die Mannschaft sind ...". I think most languages are similar.
The bottom line is that in neither case can there be any confusion, nicht wahr?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by gurnemanz View PostEnglish has the flexibility to communicate this meaning and think of a noun from this semantic angle and override the usual syntactic requirement of singular noun + singular verb.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View Post
I think we had a discussion about this a few years ago. Nouns, adjectives, adverbs can happily conjugate as verbs or whatever. The flexibility is with the speaker and hearer. But me no buts - ignore the do's and don't's. Mutual undertanding (even with typos) can be arrived at in many ways.
Comment
-
-
....some of the police body camera footage of recent riots should be interesting (I suspect)....perhaps Forum members Pedants Paradise could be issued with such like cameras to bring us scuzenglish straight from the hot streets....(no need to flourish England flags while collecting exibits - this is optional)Last edited by eighthobstruction; 04-08-24, 13:22.bong ching
Comment
-
-
It used to be the case that if you wanted to ask someone to do something the form was either: "Will you please ...?" or to avoid any hint of peremptoriness: "Would you please ... ?" (Answer Yes or No); alternatively "I wonder if you would be so kind as to ...".
This now seems frequently to take the form "May you please ..." (not as yet "Might you please ..." with the possible answer "I might do if so inclined ..."). But how does 'May you...?' mean anything?It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View PostIt used to be the case that if you wanted to ask someone to do something the form was either: "Will you please ...?" or to avoid any hint of peremptoriness: "Would you please ... ?" (Answer Yes or No); alternatively "I wonder if you would be so kind as to ...".
This now seems frequently to take the form "May you please ..." (not as yet "Might you please ..." with the possible answer "I might do if so inclined ..."). But how does 'May you...?' mean anything?
.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by vinteuil View Post
I have not yet encountered 'May you please... '. I shall report back. Might it be a local (Bristow?) phenomenon?
Others seems to have encountered it:
It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
A bit on the lines of the singular case of social media: an article I was reading today stated: “Indeed, less than half of the possible 46 paintings that Mabel is thought to have completed are currently accounted for…”
This seems to want it both ways. Either “Fewer than half […] are accounted for” or “Less than half […] is accounted for”. Classically, since half of 46 is 23, it would be ‘fewer are’ though I wouldn’t quibble over ‘Less than one/a half is’ since logically less than one half might be one quarter or one eighth, hence requiring a singular verb (percentages are a different matter).
A difference between this and examples with ‘media’ is that one can have 46 paintings or one painting, the equivalent being '46 media or one medium', rather than one media (or mutatis mutandis ‘46 mediums and one medium’).
It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
Comment