Proper grammar that looks wrong

[WotNot]

@Mangetout

Dunno. I first thought of it myself a couple of years ago when I made thisDVD cover mockup, but I don’t expect I was the first - it’s kinda obvious.

I don’t think Nancarrow’s really interested in your actual thought processes – he just wants to be the first to say how How How How How It’s Made Is Made Is Made Was Made was made.

But I can’t tell you that because he called dibs.

[Mangetout]

I get it now :smack:

[Leaffan]

Lately, in reports I write, Word keeps correcting things like “Staff are not aware of the risks…” to “Staff is not aware of the risks…”

I still think it should be “are” but I’ve been accepting the recommendation from Word. It sounds wrong to me.

[Nancarrow]

@WotNot

I don’t think Nancarrow’s really interested in your actual thought processes – he just wants to be the first to say how How How How How It’s Made Is Made Is Made Was Made was made.

But I can’t tell you that because he called dibs.

Indeed, a most succinct dissection of my motivation behind posting. Now all we need is to think of a snappy title for your explanation.

I have a headache.

[Jragon]

@Leaffan

Lately, in reports I write, Word keeps correcting things like “Staff are not aware of the risks…” to “Staff is not aware of the risks…”

I still think it should be “are” but I’ve been accepting the recommendation from Word. It sounds wrong to me.

Are/is can be a weird problem with proper nouns especially.

The Powerpuff Girls is on Netflix.
The Powerpuff Girls are on Netflix.

Both actually make sense in their own way, but the latter is kind of cutesy because it treats the Powerpuff Girls like real people who have a show on Netflix, while the former is saying “a show by the title of ‘The Powerpuff Girls’” is on Netflix.

[Pine_Fresh_Scent]

I’m still trying to parse the title of this AV Club article: Framing Can Turn You From a Witness to the Murderer. If I had to expand this title, is it correct to say “(Movie) Framing Can Turn You From a Witness (to the murder) to (a witness against) the Murderer”?

Between the first two deaths, Coppola cuts back to Michael so we can see just how uninterested he is. The audience doesn’t feel how Michael does; we simply learn how he feels about them. The use of the long and extreme long shots prevents the focus from being on the faces of the dead and dying, so the composition inhibits our ability to become emotionally invested in their respective fates in the way we would if they were presented in close-up. We’re not complicit in these deaths—they happened because Michael wanted them to happen, and we’re unfortunate witnesses. Even Fredo’s death, one which should bother us, consists of little more than a slow zoom that, for a moment at least, keeps the revolver that ends Fredo’s life off camera…There’s Michael, staring out at the lake, but not at his brother as he’s being murdered—because Michael is a piece of shit. We don’t care about all those other bodies, but Fredo? Michael, he was your brother. How could you do that to your brother? Granted, there are any number of reasons, but my point here is that this scene ends with the audience sitting in judgment over Michael.

Oh, and Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo, because-why not?

[vontsira]

@WotNot

I don’t think Nancarrow’s really interested in your actual thought processes – he just wants to be the first to say how How How How How It’s Made Is Made Is Made Was Made was made.

Off at a tangent – but this is, after all, “Mundane Pointless Stuff I must share”. Re such sentences – in the county of Norfolk in England, there’s a village called Castle Rising – which has a ruined castle, hence the name – so, the ruin is Castle Rising Castle. Fun has been had, elaborating therefrom. There might have been a historical episode in which a successful rebellion against the powers-that-were, was led by a Mr. Castle, holder of Castle Rising Castle; following on from which, Mr. C. went up in the world. So a guest of his, up early in the morning, could have observed the rising Castle Rising Castle Rising Castle, rising.

[OldGuy]

@Senegoid

True story: In English 1A, we read an essay titled The Great Dinosaur Ripoff by Steven Jay Gould. Some months later, I came across an op-ed piece by Gould in a newspaper, in which he basically repeated much of that earlier essay, but without mentioning that he was, in essence, plagiarizing his own earlier essay.

I wrote a note to my English teacher about it, which I titled The Great Great Dinosaur Ripoff Ripoff.

Except it should have been The Great The Great Dinosaur Ripoff Ripoff.

[guizot]

@runningdude

None could be plural; “All are”, “None are” versus “Everyone is”, “No one is”.

Traditional prescriptive grammars allow none to be construed as either singular or plural (as do the style books of major publications).

There really is no need to analyze it as in the above posts. The prescriptive “correctness” of the construction either way was arbitrarily settled a long time ago. This duality also seems to be born out in descriptive grammar, too.

[guizot]

@Senegoid

Here’s another example of hard-to-parse sentences that I found in a linguistics textbook.

The mouse died.

The mouse the cat ate died.

The mouse the cat the dog chased ate died.

The second sentence comes from the first by simply putting “the mouse the cat ate” in place of simply “the mouse”; and the third sentence comes from the second by putting “the cat the dog chased” in place of simply “the cat”.

So the third sentence is created by the same production rule as the second, and is technically just as grammatical. But most observers seem to agree that the first and second sentences are straightforward, yet the third is incomprehensible.

It helps if you put the elided relative pronouns back in:

The mouse – which the cat which the dog chased - ate - died.

Then in speech it becomes pretty easily comprehensible by way of strategic use of sentence stress (and pausing) to indicate the ownership of the noun clauses by their respective verbs.

[Mangetout]

@Jragon

Are/is can be a weird problem with proper nouns especially.

The Powerpuff Girls is on Netflix.
The Powerpuff Girls are on Netflix.

Both actually make sense in their own way, but the latter is kind of cutesy because it treats the Powerpuff Girls like real people who have a show on Netflix, while the former is saying “a show by the title of ‘The Powerpuff Girls’” is on Netflix.

British English often treats collective nouns as plural or single depending on context and what sounds right - for example, “The team is on the bus” or “The team are wearing their new shirts”.

[Quartz]

@Amateur_Barbarian

“The data support the conclusion.” Although I think data as a singular noun is just about over the finish line of acceptability.

A neuter plural noun taking a singular verb goes back to classical Greek.

[JKellyMap]

@Quartz

A neuter plural noun taking a singular verb goes back to classical Greek.

Was it, at first, a “mistake” even then, and then gained acceptance…in both cases encouraged by the coincidental fact of the neuter plural (in the nominative) having the same ending as the feminine singular?

[Jragon]

@Mangetout

British English often treats collective nouns as plural or single depending on context and what sounds right - for example, “The team is on the bus” or “The team are wearing their new shirts”.

I think American English does too to at least some degree. I’d never say “The Beatles is a good band.” Sounds awkward.

[pulykamell]

@Jragon

I think American English does too to at least some degree. I’d never say “The Beatles is a good band.” Sounds awkward.

But “Beatles” is already plural, so that’s why it sounds awkward in American English. Try it with a band like “Metallica.” “Metallica is a good band” vs “Metallica are a good band.” Both do actually sound okay to me, but I’m not sure whether the latter is usual in US English or not. Or try it as “Metallica rocks!” vs “Metallica rock!” I think the former is much preferred in US English.

[Quartz]

@JKellyMap

Was it, at first, a “mistake” even then, and then gained acceptance…in both cases encouraged by the coincidental fact of the neuter plural (in the nominative) having the same ending as the feminine singular?

I’ve no idea.

[mbh]

On using “will” or “shall”, James Reston once offered this advice: “Whenever you think ‘shall’ is correct, you are probably wrong.”

[RobDog]

@mbh

On using “will” or “shall”, James Reston once offered this advice: “Whenever you think ‘shall’ is correct, you are probably wrong.”

I shall remember that, I really will.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@Senegoid

True story: In English 1A, we read an essay titled The Great Dinosaur Ripoff by Steven Jay Gould. Some months later, I came across an op-ed piece by Gould in a newspaper, in which he basically repeated much of that earlier essay, but without mentioning that he was, in essence, plagiarizing his own earlier essay.

I wrote a note to my English teacher about it, which I titled The Great Great Dinosaur Ripoff Ripoff.

It’s nonsensical to say that Gould was plagiarizing his own earlier essay. Plagiarism is using the words of another person without attribution. He was recycling his own work.

[Jragon]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

It’s nonsensical to say that Gould was plagiarizing his own earlier essay. Plagiarism is using the words of another person without attribution. He was recycling his own work.

At least in academia self-plagiarism is considered a thing, you can get in every bit as much trouble as normal plagiarism if you recycle older published work without citing it.