Grammar that makes you cringe

[hellymedic]

Maybe this is spelling or usage, not grammar.
I was rather disappointed that the 'complimentay items' offered here were not free of charge!
http://www.safetyfirstaid.co.uk/Product/SFA/Dressings/Ambulance-Dressing.aspx

[HTFB]

Should this thread be "Grammar which makes you cringe", then?

[rower40]

Should this thread be "Grammar which makes you cringe", then?

Yorkshire:
Grammar AS makes you cringe.

No thanks,  I left my coat at home

[mattc]

Maybe this is spelling or usage, not grammar.
I was rather disappointed that the 'complimentay items' offered here were not free of charge!

If you can work something in that is "out of order", it would fit nicely in the "Terrible Jokes Thread". 

[Aeroflash]

Apologies if this one has already been mentioned, but one thing that is guaranteed to make me froth at the mouth is the use of the plural for organisations - e.g. 'the government have introduced a policy' or 'the mclaren F1 team have signed a driver'. There's only one government, therefore it HAS introduced a policy. What makes it worse is that the media now seems have adopted this incorrect version. I've nothing against the evolution of the language but wrong is wrong.

[Giraffe]

Yes, such as "England are..." for a team that is singular, not England and if there's an English player in it...
Then the opposite: "25 billion is..." - now why do I feel that that figure might just qualify as >1?

Also the mixtures, where it's singular to start with then jumps to plurality for no reason.

[Cudzoziemiec]

25 billion are a very large number.

 

[HTFB]

the media now seems have adopted this

The media now seem to have, surely.

[drossall]

The media now seem to have, surely.

+1

[Bledlow]

Apologies if this one has already been mentioned, but one thing that is guaranteed to make me froth at the mouth is the use of the plural for organisations - e.g. 'the government have introduced a policy' or 'the mclaren F1 team have signed a driver'. There's only one government, therefore it HAS introduced a policy.

+1.

[citoyen]

Should this thread be "Grammar which makes you cringe", then?

No.

d.

[citoyen]

Apologies if this one has already been mentioned, but one thing that is guaranteed to make me froth at the mouth is the use of the plural for organisations - e.g. 'the government have introduced a policy' or 'the mclaren F1 team have signed a driver'. There's only one government, therefore it HAS introduced a policy. What makes it worse is that the media now seems have adopted this incorrect version. I've nothing against the evolution of the language but wrong is wrong.

Sometimes singular nouns can have a plural sense, just as sometimes plural nouns can have a singular sense.

Would you say "The police are looking for the criminal" or "The police is looking for the criminal"?

Would you say "The United States are the world's richest nation" or "The United States is the world's richest nation"?*

d.

*Assuming for the sake of argument that it still is the world's richest nation.

[rogerzilla]

There is no rule on this.  In fact, the BBC style guide says that BBC Radio uses one rule and BBC TV uses the opposite.  It depends whether you perceive the subjuect as a group of people or a single entity.

[citoyen]

There is no rule on this.

Wrong. Because, as you say yourself...

  In fact, the BBC style guide says that BBC Radio uses one rule and BBC TV uses the opposite.

...so there are clearly at least two rules. QED.

d.

[Auntie Helen]

This is quite an issue for me with the work I do for a US record company.

They (I always assumed, correctly) use a singular for stuff done by a band. However, when the band is called "The Oak Ridge Boys" it just sounds wrong that they say "The Oak Ridge Boys has released its new album" so I change it to "The Oak Ridge Boys have released their new album". Even with bands with not-obvious names, such as Leeland, I find myself using the plural as I know there are four members in that band - "Leeland have recorded their latest single" rather than "Leeland has recorded its latest single".

[HTFB]

This is quite an issue for me with the work I do for a US record company.

They (I always assumed, correctly) use a singular...

Or, as Aeroflash would prefer, "It uses a singular".

[rogerzilla]

There is no rule on this.

Wrong. Because, as you say yourself...

  In fact, the BBC style guide says that BBC Radio uses one rule and BBC TV uses the opposite.

...so there are clearly at least two rules. QED.

d.

Pedant.  As it's a binary choice and there are two rules, there are therefore no rules.  QED yourself 

[mattc]

I've just realised why I think both rules sound right for certain expressions. Take Cit's examples:

Would you say "The police are looking for the criminal" or "The police is looking for the criminal"?

Would you say "The United States are the world's richest nation" or "The United States is the world's richest nation"?*

I can visualise policemen looking for a criminal. I've met individual policemen, I've seen them working.

I can't visualise "The United States" - at least not as a group of people.

So are and is, respectively, just sound more appropriate. To me.

_{(I don't know how big a nation needs to be before it becomes singular in my mind's eye ... )}

[citoyen]

Pedant.  As it's a binary choice and there are two rules, there are therefore no rules.  QED yourself 

1+1=0? Obviously a mathematical subtlety I'm missing there.

Anyway, it's not pedantry, I was just trying to make the point that there are actually lots of different rules (it's not just a binary choice - there are as many rules as there are style guides in the world).

The different rules don't cancel each other out and none of them is absolutely correct. In fact, they're all correct. What's important is that whichever rule you follow, you follow it consistently.

Your view on this matter may depend on what you consider to be the purpose of grammar.

d.

[Ian H]

Your view on this matter may depend on what you consider to be the purpose of grammar.

To obfuscate, obviously.

[citoyen]

I've just been re-reading this thread from the beginning. Highly amusing way to waste half an hour. Here's a helpful reminder of something that was said early in the thread that bears repetition:

Hmm. My experience seems similar to Drossall; breaking the rules generally makes things _harder_ to understand. Having 10 ways to spell 'bought' doesn't help anyone.

That's only because you're at the fag-end of an educational system which has (often literally) beaten in an entirely constructed and elitist 'correctness' to generations of kids. It is the same mentality that regards Scots or Geordie as 'wrong' (rather than 'wrang'  ) and thinks there is something good about 'received pronouciation' (as it that which is received in polite society - in other words, amongst snobs).

Thankfully, this is now changing again and we are once again recognizing English as the rich, messy thessauric stew which has made it so successful and adaptable a means of communication as well as a wonderful medium for song, poetry and prose.

Gan canny like, kidda. 

d.

[jeremaiah]

Interesting thing my sister told me. She's been teaching English in a private school for a few months now and we were discussing some grammar rules for the conditionals, and as you are probably aware, it is correct to say 'I wish I were' rather than 'I wish I was'. But what has happened apparently is that now the rules has changed and it is possible to say either. I think it's one of those things that change because enough people do it wrong and it's just another proof how languages (particularly English) are deteriorating.

[mattc]

Wo'evah.

[hellymedic]

<<But what has happened apparently is that now the rules has changed >>

I don't think the rules have changed that much! 

[Cudzoziemiec]

People have been saying "I wish I was" for a long time. There's a recognised process whereby languages simplify themselves (and another where they create irregularities), and "I were" is the last surviving subjunctive form in English, so it's natural that it should be ironed out.