Grammar that makes you cringe

[citoyen]

Unless the 'they' is the gender-neutral singular form.

"If [USA] wins [3rd person sing] the current hole, they win [3rd person plural] the match."

My complaint is not that one is right and the other wrong, but that they've used both in the same sentence.

d.

[red marley]

An my point was that you can use the word 'they' in the singular when you wish to avoid attaching a particular gender to a gendered noun:

If [USA] wins [3rd person singular] the current hole, they win [gender neutral singular] the match.

I realise some people object to this, but I think gender neural 'they' as a singular is one evolution of the language which is quite helpful and avoids having to use passive constructions all the time.

[Cudzoziemiec]

But even when they has singular meaning, we still use a plural verb form. Perhaps it's time to start saying 'they wins'.

[mattc]

Is this related to my observation that Hugh Porter always says:
Italy are on the front
to indicate:
An Italian rider is on the front
?!?

[and yes, he says the same when several Italians are on the front  ]

[HTFB]

But this isn't an example of gender-neutral-singular-they. It's the perfectly usual problem where one group is several things, which are one group. Whether the group acts as one, or act separately and plurally, is entirely a matter of context and not of grammar at all.

Here the winner of the whole is a single golfer, who by synecdoche is representing his team, who by synecdoche are referred to with the name of the country they represent, which has a plural form but is a single country; his opponents represent a resolutely plural group of countries under a singular name.

If these things bother you you should probably avoid speaking any language at all. It's how the world is: don't blame the grammar.

[Jules]

I have just been having a flick through the Evans Cycles catalogue and found this gem "Garmin have recently announced the launch of the Edge 800 GPS, the predecessor to the popular Edge 705"  

Back To The Future!

<digressing wildly and trying to make his point without too many grammatical howlers>

It's funny you said that! My first Garmin (a GPS II if I recall correctly) stopped working at about 88mph so it could not be used to assist in the navigation of powered aerial devices. Garmin charged more for those that could.

</as you were>

[citoyen]

It's how the world is: don't blame the grammar.

But I'm not blaming the grammar!

d.

[Ian H]

If you treat USA as singular, what pronoun would you use for the second half of the sentence?

"It".

[citoyen]

Thank you, Ian.

d.

[Nuncio]

Is this related to my observation that Hugh Porter always says:
Italy are on the front
to indicate:
An Italian rider is on the front
?!?

[and yes, he says the same when several Italians are on the front  ]

Whereas, when Duffield used to say
Italy are on the front
there was a fair chance there was a Russian on the front.

[Cudzoziemiec]

If you treat USA as singular, what pronoun would you use for the second half of the sentence?

"It".

"If the USA wins the current hole, it will win the match."

Works for me, as a sentence. The only problem is that it implies the country as one entity will win, whereas I would think of it of as a team consisting of multiple players - particularly as golf is not a team sport, so rather than one team acting in unison, as would be the case in, say, football, you have a number of players playing individually. At least, I presume that's how it works - I'm not really familiar with the format of the Ryder Cup. In any case, this has been dealt with already.

[citoyen]

It's not really the point though.

The verb has to agree with the subject. The pronoun has to agree with the antecedent noun. Ergo the same form of the verb must be used in both clauses.

"If USA win the current hole, they win the match."

"If USA wins the current hole, it wins the match."

Take your pick. One or the other. I don't mind either way.

If I were being really picky, I might make a point about appropriate use of the subjunctive and conditional, but... meh.

d.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I'm still in favour of forcing the pace of linguistic change by treating 'they' as a fully singular pronoun to be used in cases where gender is unknown, mixed, or irrelevant.

"If USA wins the current hole, they wins the match."

I reserve the right never to use this form again!

[Ham]

My pet hate...

the "10 items or less" signs in my local Sainsbury's.  

I've been known to carry a marker pen around and correct them...  

Oddly enough, the supermarkets in France, Germany and Switzerland all say "maximum 8 items"...

I'm looking for a pic I shot in my local M&S, one till had a sign "10 items or less" and the next had "10 items or fewer
 

[citoyen]

Dangling participles.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone who earns a living as a sub editor to be able to recognise a dangling participle when they see one. Nor do I think it's unreasonable to expect someone who earns a living as a writer not to commit the offence in the first place. FFS.

d.

[clarion]

Not grammar per se, but language.

Does a sludge spillage have an epicentre?

And was it really from an aluminum plant?

[citoyen]

Does a sludge spillage have an epicentre?

I've noticed lots of epicentres in the news lately. I don't mind the term being used metaphorically, though some of the instances of its use seem rather odd - this being a good example.

d.

[clarion]

I can just about go with it, if the spill was near the bed of the river, and we're talking about the point on the surface, but that would be daft.

Amazing what words people are prepared to use without knowing what they mean.

[HTFB]

The SOED offers a meaning of epicentre: figuratively, the centre or heart of something, especially something unpleasant. Mid-twentieth-century in origin, and supported by a quotation from Graham Swift.

[clarion]

That's silly.  Epi-  means on the edge of, like epidermis, rather than the centre of.  That's be Endo-

I can't help it if Graham Swift can't use English properly

[Cudzoziemiec]

Isn't the word epicentre mostly used to descrive earthquakes? In which context it means the point on the earth's surface nearest to the underground point which is the actual centre of the earthquake - a sensible use of the word. But because from a general point of view, for just about anyone other than a geologist or a miner, that point on the earth's surface is the effective centre of the quake, the meaning drifts. A case of the law of unintended consequences at work in language, you could say.

[clarion]

I'd suggest that it's more like a case of bloody ignorance taking away a word with a specific meaning to be a synonym for a simpler word instead, undermining understanding of a technical term, and being a vain attempt to appear more clevererer by a hack.

[mattc]

I'd suggest that it's more like a case of bloody ignorance taking away a word with a specific meaning to be a synonym for a simpler word instead, undermining understanding of a technical term, and being a vain attempt to appear more clevererer by a hack.

+1

Of course it's also an attempt to 'Big Up' an incident by comparing it with an earthquake (I've heard it used in political reports!).  Which is even more stupid with something like the Great Sludge Disaster.

[citoyen]

Yes, it's precisely because of that association with earthquakes that reporters use "epicentre" - never mind what it means, it heightens the impression of being part of a cataclysmic event. Nothing especially wrong with that apart from being lazy journalism.

Of course, the word "centre" is more accurate, simpler and perfectly serviceable.

d.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Ah, could be that too.

I'd suggest it comes out at much the same thing; using a word that sounds appropriate, shifting its specific meaning to a more generalised one. Over time (and a few more cleverest jounos) the generalised meaning becomes the commonly accepted one. Epicentre = technical word for middle of something that's happening. Pity the poor geologists who either have to explain the original, specific meaning of the word, or invent a new one.