Hey, not trying to start a flame war, I wasn't aware there much much of a gramatical difference between american english and ... english english(?).
I'm ok with being wrong.
Upvote
0
More Self-Ownage
- Thread starter Comrade Wasabi
- Start date
Hey, not trying to start a flame war, I wasn't aware there much much of a gramatical difference between american english and ... english english(?).
I'm ok with being wrong.
As a former teacher of English and a founder member of the League of Pedantic Bastards I have to tell you that the jury is still out regarding whether any group, be it musical, sports or even the government, should be classified as definitely singular or plural.
At present most authorities (and we don't have any official arbiters of the English language, unlike the French with the Academie Francaise) tend to say that the usage depends on the context but generally lean towards the use of plural verbs for any noun relating to groups.
E.g. Chelsea IS full of overpaid ******s (the area of London)
Chelsea ARE overpaid ******s (the football team).
The Police ARE looking for the arsonist.
The government ARE a buncha ****s etc. etc.
P.S. Lynne Truss can go and **** herself - selling hand-wringing 'why, oh, why?' pieces of terd to Daily Mail readers who see any changes in the English language as further evidence that this sceptred isle is being swamped by hoodie-wearing Islamic Poles intent on speaking patois as a way of lowering property prices. The ****.
At present most authorities (and we don't have any official arbiters of the English language, unlike the French with the Academie Francaise) tend to say that the usage depends on the context but generally lean towards the use of plural verbs for any noun relating to groups.
E.g. Chelsea IS full of overpaid ******s (the area of London)
Chelsea ARE overpaid ******s (the football team).
The Police ARE looking for the arsonist.
The government ARE a buncha ****s etc. etc.
P.S. Lynne Truss can go and **** herself - selling hand-wringing 'why, oh, why?' pieces of terd to Daily Mail readers who see any changes in the English language as further evidence that this sceptred isle is being swamped by hoodie-wearing Islamic Poles intent on speaking patois as a way of lowering property prices. The ****.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Uh, yeah, but a band is a group of people, i.e. more than one person, i.e. plural.
"Iron Maiden is good" may not be technically incorrect, but I just think it sounds... wrong.
Edit: You realise this conversation started with shemale vids?
Upvote
0
This is far more important than trivial shemale vids, I think "is" sounds better than "are" in the sentence "Iron Maiden is good".
Voltron, while technically comprised of leik five separate robots, was a single unstopable entity, kinda like a band.
Voltron is Rad.
Iron Maiden is good.
Upvote
0
Any band is a group of individuals?
What about bands that are called "The [Something]s"?
"The Kinks is good"?
What about bands that are called "The [Something]s"?
"The Kinks is good"?
Upvote
0
I see your point, I guess if the bands' name is plural, "are" sounds better.
"Iron Maiden are good" still sounds wrong to me though.
"Iron Maiden are good" still sounds wrong to me though.
Upvote
0
Iron Maiden is a singular title. While, yes, it encompasses several different people, the name (which is the key thing here) is in the singular form. Thusly, "Iron Maiden is sexy."
However, if the band name is plural (i.e., The Ramones), it is quite proper to state that "The Ramones are good."
It's a matter of singular vs. plural forms - what the term encompasses is irrelevant.
However, if the band name is plural (i.e., The Ramones), it is quite proper to state that "The Ramones are good."
It's a matter of singular vs. plural forms - what the term encompasses is irrelevant.
Upvote
0
To put it another way, take the word "population." It certainly encompasses many people, yet we say "The population is growing."
On a side note, this is the oddest debate I've ever had. Grammar and.... Iron Maiden? Hehe.
On a side note, this is the oddest debate I've ever had. Grammar and.... Iron Maiden? Hehe.
Upvote
0
No, that would still be "The populace is angry."
However, it could be "The people of the populace are anrgy."
Essentially, when you have one word on its own that does not indicate singular or plural form, the form is assumed to be singular.
However, if the term is modified by something to make it undeniably plural, then it is "are."
For example.... "The NYPD is going to raid the house."
"The detectives at the NYPD are going to raid the house."
There has to be an indication of plurality within the sentence.
However, it could be "The people of the populace are anrgy."
Essentially, when you have one word on its own that does not indicate singular or plural form, the form is assumed to be singular.
However, if the term is modified by something to make it undeniably plural, then it is "are."
For example.... "The NYPD is going to raid the house."
"The detectives at the NYPD are going to raid the house."
There has to be an indication of plurality within the sentence.
How did we deviate from this? Tsk tsk.
Upvote
0
Oops, I just realized that "The people of the populace" is unbelievably redundant and stupid-sounding.
That being said, I'm right, you're wrong.
Still, props go out to my homeboy Lizardhands..... Fo real.
That being said, I'm right, you're wrong.
Still, props go out to my homeboy Lizardhands..... Fo real.
Upvote
0
The populace can blow me, you is so wrong...etc ROFLMAOAGWMP (roll on the floor laughing my arse off and generally wetting my pants)
is it any wonder I never get any work done?
is it any wonder I never get any work done?
Upvote
0