atw: Re: Change of collective noun use and other changes - why? Just because
- From: Michael Lewis <michael.lewis@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 10:14:27 +1100
Michelle, it's changed by people who _use_ it - they usually don't really
care about it, and merely take it for granted.
- Michael
On 19 March 2012 06:44, Michelle Hallett <michelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
> ****
>
> ** **
>
>
Other related posts:
