While not seeking to control language, I'm really tired of such constructs as 'the below email' (don't they know it's an adverb, not an adjective) or 'companies' used as possessive while 'fee's' is used as plural. Worst, this is all caused by well educated corporate ninnies who think they are writing English correctly. Or who don't care as long as they come across as looking smart. I'm all for the language changing and growing, but why can't it be changed by people who love language? Michelle On 18/03/2012, at 8:23 PM, "Geoffrey" <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > … and then again there are collective nouns that have always taken a plural > verb. We typically say “Police are attending the scene”, not “Police is > attending the scene”. Likewise, “There are cattle in the field” and “Vermin > are under the house”. > > There seems to be few so-called rules of English grammar that do not admit of > exceptions. So perhaps we should shift our focus from “rules being broken” to > “rules trying to be discerned in acceptable, idiomatic usage”. The so-called > rules of grammar are like mathematical equations that scientists try to fit > to a not unruly, but still not tidy, set of data points. A parabola might fit > nicely … except for a few outliers; a verb and subject should agree … except > for first-person and second-person pronouns (and so on). I before e except > after c except … After how many exceptions and qualifications does a rule > cease being a rule? > > Rules follow usage; they will never dictate usage. Users will do their own > thing (as is their right), which is why we no longer speak or write in the > manner of Geoffrey Chaucer. And why those in the twenty-fourth century will > no doubt struggle to understand what we are writing today. > > Those who seek to control language should first consider the labours of > Sisyphus. > > Cheers > > Geoffrey Marnell > Principal Consultant > Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd > P: 03 9596 3456 > M: 0419 574 668 > F: 03 9596 3625 > W: www.abelard.com.au > > From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Lewis > Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2012 6:54 PM > To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: atw: Re: Change of collective noun use - why? > > One further observation about the sing/pl issue with collectives: it has long > been recognised that we use those collectives in two different ways - as > reference to the collectivity and as a general reference to the individual > members. We say that the committee is united, but we often say that the > committee are not in agreement. (US English is much more rigid about this; > Aus E follows British English in recognising this idea of "conceptual" > agreement between subject and verb. > > But that is possibly "too difficult" for some people. There is a general > principle that exceptions to grammatical "rules" fade away - the tendency to > normalisation is very strong. Oddly, that's why "media" and "data" are now > treated as singular, but because most people are aware that teams and > committees and governments are made of multiple people, those nouns are > treated as plural. > > Not approving; merely observing. > > - Michael > > >