Well, to be honest, I don’t really care enough to “approve” or “disapprove” of something quite that mundane.
But the thing is, it’s not clearly a misuse. The “less/fewer” distinction is simply not a hard and fast rule and never has been; the word “less” has been used to modify plural nouns since before William Shakespeare was born. I agree that “fewer” is a better choice in that particular example, but it’s not really a blatant error.
Really? Everything here defines it as a plural.
I’m not applying any personal stndard at all, just telling you how those words are used in English. As you said, the original Latin doesn’t matter. “Agenda” has always been a singular noun in English. “Media” has not been.
While I agree with this position in principle, languages are living and changing. We all have to walk the line between common usage and pedantry. When do common usages become correct language? When the OED says they do? If you find that you’ve been using something wrong, do you immediately try to change what you’ve been saying?
For example, the word nauseous used to only mean to cause nausea or disgust, as opposed to feeling nausea. Now Merriam-Webster lists this as a proper usage. Don’t know what OED has to say because I’m not subscribed, and for some reason dictionary.com isn’t loading for me right now, but last I checked it had it listed as an incorrect, although it did have a common usage note.
And what about email? M-W has this listed as “e-mail,” but I know the “scare hyphen” is eventually going the way of the dodo, as it did in to-morrow. I know I would feel pedantic if I were ever to correct someone for writing “email.”
So who’s your authority? Do you ever make any of your own decisions about what’s correct in terms of language?
I understand your point, but by that same token can we ever say that any spelling or usage is wrong? I do concede that “media” has probably passed the point of no return into becoming a singular noun and I’ll concede my objection is pedantic pissing against the wind but I’ll be damned if I’ll surrender the actual definition of the word “literal” (a definition which is useful and necessary to the maintainance of clarity in the language) as a meaningless intensifier just yet.
Yup. Language is an ongoing democratic election, and if a spelling or usage doesn’t get enough votes, it’s wrong. When it gets enough votes, it becomes accepted. You may not like the usage that took office, but it’s there nonetheless. (I’m a little less blase about spelling, since it’s manufactured and not organic, but I won’t get into that here.)
And no, I couldn’t tell you where the cutoff between accepted and not is, not least because the speakers of a language are far from a monolithic entity, only that it exists.
Of course, that would mean that we find that your opinion may be dismissed out of hand, in that we have you on record abusing the word “access” as though it were a verb.
Yeah, well, that was a typo. I meant to say “give access.” Yeah, that’s it.
Ok, I thought it was acceptable to use it as a verb. At least I didn’t do it with “impact.”
Although the OED mentions that “the use of media with singular concord and as a singular form with a plural in -s have both been regarded by some as non-standard and objectionable,” most of its examples show it being used in the singular:
Of course, some of those examples are a little ugly. I wouldn’t condone “medias,” since it’s so ungainly and (more imporantly) this is the first time I’ve ever seen the word used seriously.
Isn’t it a hold-over from the Greek: neuter plural nouns can take a singular verb?
And BTW each and every member of the media has their own biases - some liberal, some conservative, some libertarian, some communist, etc.
But that is now how “media” is used in English. It’s used as a singular now, and as I said, it’s not a new development. You aren’t complaining about the definition of “nice,” which has changed a few times. Well, why not?
I’m not advocating a pure “usage makes truth” approach. I’m not going to concede that “supposably” is a word and I’m going to fight the it’s/its thing until the day I die.
However, in this case, the adoption of a new definition for “Media” is a good example of English adapting to help speech. “Media” in this context strikes me as being a very logical change to the word that serves a genuine purpose. It is, by necessity, replacing the outdated word “the press” as a noun to describe the fourth estate, since it is now represented by more than just the medium of print. “Media” as a singular has a different definition than “media” as a plural; it refers to an entity in a collective, Gestalt sort of way that “more than one medium” does not. It’s a useful word with a good meaning, and I like it and think it should be viewed as acceptable. It sure beats “MSM.”
“Media” as a plural is still a useful word in other contexts. In fact, I’ve never heard “media” used in the singular in any context OTHER than meaning “the fourth estate.”
Word. Literal bugs the crap out of me, too.
The world has, what some conservatives would describe as, a liberal bias.
(Or in other words, yeah, it bugs me too - but not primarily because of the grammar)
What’s there to disapprove of?
Yeah, actually that is how language changes. Constant misuse eventually becomes a change in meaning.
So why can’t “media” be singular in English, too? All your arguments justifying “agenda” apply to “media” too.
Both are from latin plural roots. Why is one wrong and the other right?
Let me add that your reasoning is circular: “media” is is plural because “media” is plural. “Agenda” is singular because “agenda” is singular.
Yet both come from plural latin roots. Why, then is it correct to use “agenda” in the singular?
Because that’s the way they evolved in English. I’m not making an argument based on Latin, just stating how the words are defined in English. I’m not the one who decided how the words would evolve.
Must I explain the concept of joke?
Well, I was just saying that your joke misunderstood McLuhan: if you’d understood him, you’d have said, “The media ARE the messages.” You may feel that I’m nit-picking, but to me a joke based on a quotation works better if it doesn’t misinterpret what the original is saying.
(As an aside, I really hate people who quote Juliet’s “Wherefore art thou Romeo?” as if it meant “Where are you Romeo?” That’s the sort of misinterpretation I mean – and CalMeacham’s was rather less egregious than that one.)
More pertinently, “reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
