English like she used to be spoke

mathepac

When I went to school we learned about collective nouns or words that referred to a group of similar things. For example a group of cows was a herd, a group of players was a team and a group of people elected to national parliament could form a government.

I listen to radio reports, read news papers and watch TV news programmes and invariably I will hear some talking head say something like "the Irish team are training hard" or "the government are investing in job creation initiatives".

Have I missed a change in the rules where a singular subject in a simple sentence now takes the plural of the verb that used to be singular? Why? What if there are two teams? "The two teams is training hard", is this the new grammar, plural is the new singular?

Comments on €50 notes to my email address.

Why the proclivity of other talking heads to refer to non-existant organisations / publications like the "English FA" the "English RFU" the "London Times", etc? Why the inaccuracies caused by some misguided, cringe-worthy attempt to disambiguate the unambiguous? Again did I miss a class or was I not on the distribution list for some vitally important email?

Comments on £5 notes to my email address.

Earthhorse

Regarding your first query this was discussed before on this forum, here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70685436

As I said at the time, would you really say something like "Irish Children is at a greater risk of obesity" even though "Irish Children" is a single entity?

Gumbi

Earthhorse wrote: »

Regarding your first query this was discussed before on this forum, here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70685436

As I said at the time, would you really say something like "Irish Children is at a greater risk of obesity" even though "Irish Children" is a single entity?

"Irish children" is not a collective noun. "Team" is. (Hopefully I got the terminology right).

OP, it's a new trend I think. Perhaps it can be compared to how commentator's at matches say "Ireland throw" instead oif "Irish throw" etc.

P. Breathnach

mathepac wrote: »

...
Why the proclivity of other talking heads to refer to non-existant organisations / publications like the "English FA" the "English RFU" the "London Times", etc? Why the inaccuracies caused by some misguided, cringe-worthy attempt to disambiguate the unambiguous? Again did I miss a class or was I not on the distribution list for some vitally important email?

The people of England may, if they wish, refer to The FA, The RFU, or The Times. We in Ireland are free to qualify those terms so as to avoid ambiguity; we apply adjectives that are useful to us. That does not mean that the institutions to which we refer are non-existent. We do recognise the titles. Read the expressions as "English FA"; "English RFU; and "London Times", where the non-italicised term is a qualification of the italicised term.

You forgot to get annoyed about the "British Open".

Comments on £5 notes to my email address.

That needs to be re-worked, as I presume your true intent is to pay us for explaining things to you.

mathepac

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The people of England may, if they wish, refer to The FA, The RFU, or The Times. ...

I doubt very much if they need our permission or indulgence to refer to their own institutions by their correct names

P. Breathnach wrote: »

... We in Ireland are free to qualify those terms so as to avoid ambiguity; we apply adjectives that are useful to us. ...

You of course are free to express what you find useful for yourself, and terms which you personally need disambiguated for you, but that does not elevate you to the post of Spokesman for the Rest of Us.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

... (1) That does not mean that the institutions to which we refer are non-existent. (2) We do recognise the titles. ...

(1) Yes it does and once again where does the "we" come from? (2) No "we" don't but you may

P. Breathnach wrote: »

... You forgot to get annoyed about the "British Open"...

No I just didn't list the Open Championship just as I didn't list the Republic of Ireland, Southern Ireland, the British Isles, English squaddies who claim to this day that they were on duty in "Ireland" (they may have been and undoubtedly some were, but not officially) and so on.

... That needs to be re-worked, as I presume your true intent is to pay us for explaining things to you.

Nah, I'll stick with my original intention as the earning / learning potential of responses so far is reatively low.

P. Breathnach

mathepac wrote: »

... You of course are free to express what you find useful for yourself, and terms which you personally need disambiguated for you, but that does not elevate you to the post of Spokesman for the Rest of Us.

I am asserting a freedom that we have. Freedom is not coercive. Like it or not, you have the same freedom as the rest of us, even if you choose to act differently.

(1) Yes it does

No it doesn't (it's pantomime season).

and once again where does the "we" come from?

see above.

(2) No "we" don't but you may

Read my words with more care; you might not disagree with me.

...
Nah, I'll stick with my original intention as the earning / learning potential of responses so far is reatively low.

Huh!

pickarooney

We'll need a Bitch with Breathnach thread at this rate :pac:

P. Breathnach

pickarooney wrote: »

We'll need a Bitch with Breathnach thread at this rate :pac:

You gonna be my bitch?

mathepac

" I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't-- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.' "

odds_on

mathepac wrote: »

When I went to school we learned about collective nouns or words that referred to a group of similar things. For example a group of cows was a herd, a group of players was a team and a group of people elected to national parliament could form a government.

I listen to radio reports, read news papers and watch TV news programmes and invariably I will hear some talking head say something like "the Irish team are training hard" or "the government are investing in job creation initiatives".

Have I missed a change in the rules where a singular subject in a simple sentence now takes the plural of the verb that used to be singular? Why? What if there are two teams? "The two teams is training hard", is this the new grammar, plural is the new singular?

Comments on €50 notes to my email address.

Why the proclivity of other talking heads to refer to non-existant organisations / publications like the "English FA" the "English RFU" the "London Times", etc? Why the inaccuracies caused by some misguided, cringe-worthy attempt to disambiguate the unambiguous? Again did I miss a class or was I not on the distribution list for some vitally important email?

Comments on £5 notes to my email address.

To return to the OP's original questions.

I think, maybe, you did miss a class or two, or even more.

The team is flying to Spain, tomorrow.
In this case, the writer/speaker is considering the team as a single unit.

The team are flying to Spain, tomorrow.
Here, the writer/speaker is considering the team as made up of a number of individuals and to emphasize that the plural is used.

If one talks about the "RFU" in Ireland, one tends to think about the "Irish" RFU. unless the context means otherwise. However, when in Ireland but talking about rugby in Australia, the speaker will probably throw in the "Australian" RFU as opposed to the RFU in Ireland for clarification. There is no inaccuracy - just clarification, possibly overused by some people when the context clearly indicates which RFU is being referred to.

My comment on €50 notes and £5 notes is that they are not the same value.

mathepac

odds_on wrote: »

... I think, maybe, you did miss a class or two, or even more...

Ah shure I was renowned for the mitching, I was a pure divil.

The team is flying to Spain, tomorrow.
In this case, the writer/speaker is considering the team as a single unit.

"The team" is the subject of the sentence and is singular.

"The team" carries out (see, it's singular) the action in the sentence so "is flying" is the predicate, which is what tells us about what a person or a thing does or did or what happened to a person or to a thing. As the subject is singular, then the predicate in the sentence agrees with the number of the subject, i.e. the “one” team.

The predicate rules are simple. It must (1) agree in number with subject, (2) have the correct tense and (3) be in the proper voice (active or passive).

In this case the writer for some strange reason, maybe poor grammar, who knows, has chosen to use the present progressive tense “is flying” in relation to an activity which the team will perform or do “tomorrow”. Clearly this future action will require the predicate to be in the future tense so “will fly” should be used instead of “is flying” in the sentence.

The team are flying to Spain, tomorrow.
Here, the writer/speaker is considering the team as made up of a number of individuals and to emphasize that the plural is used.

Here is a perfect example of bad grammar. The subject of the sentence has not changed. The writer has broken the rules about matching the predicate to the singular collective noun which is the the subject of the sentence. The tense in this sentence is incorrect as before.

If one talks about the "RFU" in Ireland, one tends to think about the "Irish" RFU. unless the context means otherwise. However, when in Ireland but talking about rugby in Australia, the speaker will probably throw in the "Australian" RFU as opposed to the RFU in Ireland for clarification. There is no inaccuracy - just clarification, possibly overused by some people when the context clearly indicates which RFU is being referred to.

To use "one" in a sentence in this fashion to refer to yourself is bad grammar and seems to be a hang-over from the French "on" which got transliterated into English. Just because German Lizzie uses ungrammatical English doesn't mean we should copy her.

To deal with the MLAs, the Irish equivalent of the RFU is the IRFU an organisation with a different name that administers the game of rugby football in Ireland. Similarly the WRU and SRU are responsible for the game of rugby footfall in their countries as is the FFR in France.

So the RFU is an English organisation and the IRFU is a different organisation in a different country and the is no need to prefix RFU with the word “English”.

When I think of rugby football in England I think of the RFU and if I think or speak or write about rugby football in Ireland it's the IRFU springs to mind

My comment on €50 notes and £5 notes is that they are not the same value.

Time alone will tell.

Thanks for getting the thread back on track.

pickarooney

To use "one" in a sentence in this fashion to refer to yourself is bad grammar and seems to be a hang-over from the French "on" which got transliterated into English. Just because German Lizzie uses ungrammatical English doesn't mean we should copy her.

Interesting theory. What's it based on?

In this case the writer for some strange reason, maybe poor grammar, who knows, has chosen to use the present progressive tense “is flying” in relation to an activity which the team will perform or do “tomorrow”. Clearly this future action will require the predicate to be in the future tense so “will fly” should be used instead of “is flying” in the sentence.

This is so disingenuous it reads like trolling. The use of the present continuous to describe actions in the near future is an extremely common feature of English to the extent that "I will go to the cinema later" or "I will have lunch with Julie tomorrow" sound positively foreign compared to the present continuous equivalents.

mathepac

"One" is not featured in any list of English pronouns that I have access to (that doesn't mean much as I'm not a linguist nor am I a teacher).

"On" on the other hand is a French indefinite pronoun which gets translated (or transliterated into English as I said above) as "one". The French indefinite pronoun "on" is similar in some ways to the passive voice in English.


"Ici on parle français" translates as "French spoken (or is spoken) here". It does not translate as "One speaks French here".

In less formal chats amongst a group of friends for example, "on" translates into many things, depending on context. It can be "we", "ourselves", "someone" / "someone else".

An' that Joe, is why I think using "one" as a pronoun in English is a bad vibe, man, jaknowworrimeyan head, righ'? What do yiz tink? All me own work reely.

mathepac

pickarooney wrote: »

... This is so disingenuous it reads like trolling ...

I contend it is not disingenuous and it is not trolling. If it is "like trolling" but not actually trolling then it carries no penalty other than having a moderator associate the word "trolling" with my thread / post for some obscure reason.

pickarooney wrote: »

... The use of the present continuous to describe actions in the near future is an extremely common feature of English to the extent that "I will go to the cinema later" or "I will have lunch with Julie tomorrow" sound positively foreign compared to the present continuous equivalents.

Maybe, maybe not. For me I guess it seems that "looser" constructs are acceptable in conversational language, but just strike me as wrong / weird when written down.

pickarooney

mathepac wrote: »

"One" is not featured in any list of English pronouns that I have access to (that doesn't mean much as I'm not a linguist nor am I a teacher).

Even without either qualification you should have access to a dictionary (item 19), an encyclopedia or the first google.ie result for English pronouns.

"On" on the other hand is a French indefinite pronoun which gets translated (or transliterated into English as I said above) as "one". The French indefinite pronoun "on" is similar in some ways to the passive voice in English.

I don't following your line of reasoning which seems to be that because a similar word (albeit with a radically different etymology and morphology) exists in one language it doesn't exist in another. The French 'on' has no possessive (one's) or reflexive (oneself) variant.

Apologies for the 'trolling' comment, I just found it genuinely puzzling that you would consider such a well-established use as aberrant. Also, I'm not an English forum moderator.

odds_on

In this case the writer for some strange reason, maybe poor grammar, who knows, has chosen to use the present progressive tense “is flying” in relation to an activity which the team will perform or do “tomorrow”. Clearly this future action will require the predicate to be in the future tense so “will fly” should be used instead of “is flying” in the sentence.

pickarooney wrote: »

Interesting theory. What's it based on?
This is so disingenuous it reads like trolling. The use of the present continuous to describe actions in the near future is an extremely common feature of English to the extent that "I will go to the cinema later" or "I will have lunch with Julie tomorrow" sound positively foreign compared to the present continuous equivalents.

Just to pick up one one point, one/we/you/I can say (it can be said):
When I retire in five/ten years time, I am going to live in Spain.
In thirty years time, I am going to retire.

Since when is five or ten years time "the near future"; or fifty years time?

The present continuous form is often used (and is grammatically correct) to indicate an intention to do something in the future. The future simple does not imply intention - it is fact. "When I retire in five/ten years time I will live in Spain."

odds_on

The team are flying to Spain, tomorrow.
Here, the writer/speaker is considering the team as made up of a number of individuals and to emphasize that the plural is used.

Here is a perfect example of bad grammar. The subject of the sentence has not changed. The writer has broken the rules about matching the predicate to the singular collective noun which is the the subject of the sentence. The tense in this sentence is incorrect as before.

It might be bad grammar, today, but in the future ....... However, English is an ever evolving language (probably more so than any other language) and is changing all the time (but I am not saying "improving"). Americanisms, which are often rule breakers to "British" English, are are creeping into British English, especially in Ireland. IMHO, this is the main reason that there are many instances of "rules" being broken. If only they could learn to speak proper English over there!

pickarooney

odds_on wrote: »

In this case the writer for some strange reason, maybe poor grammar, who knows, has chosen to use the present progressive tense “is flying” in relation to an activity which the team will perform or do “tomorrow”. Clearly this future action will require the predicate to be in the future tense so “will fly” should be used instead of “is flying” in the sentence.

pickarooney wrote: »

Interesting theory. What's it based on?
This is so disingenuous it reads like trolling. The use of the present continuous to describe actions in the near future is an extremely common feature of English to the extent that "I will go to the cinema later" or "I will have lunch with Julie tomorrow" sound positively foreign compared to the present continuous equivalents.

Just to pick up one one point, one/we/you/I can say (it can be said):
When I retire in five/ten years time, I am going to live in Spain.
In thirty years time, I am going to retire.

Since when is five or ten years time "the near future"; or fifty years time?

The present continuous form is often used (and is grammatically correct) to indicate an intention to do something in the future. The future simple does not imply intention - it is fact. "When I retire in five/ten years time I will live in Spain."

To go + verb is a different construction to present continuous as future. There is no such thing as a factual future outside of quantum mechanics.

pickarooney

odds_on wrote: »

The team are flying to Spain, tomorrow.
Here, the writer/speaker is considering the team as made up of a number of individuals and to emphasize that the plural is used.

Here is a perfect example of bad grammar. The subject of the sentence has not changed. The writer has broken the rules about matching the predicate to the singular collective noun which is the the subject of the sentence. The tense in this sentence is incorrect as before.

It might be bad grammar, today, but in the future ....... However, English is an ever evolving language (probably more so than any other language) and is changing all the time (but I am not saying "improving"). Americanisms, which are often rule breakers to "British" English, are are creeping into British English, especially in Ireland. IMHO, this is the main reason that there are many instances of "rules" being broken. If only they could learn to speak proper English over there!

I'm not sure if this is intended ironically but in American English it's normal to say 'Aston Villa is...' whereas British speakers generally say 'Aston Villa are... ' Proper English indeed.

odds_on

Quote:
Originally Posted by odds_on
Quote:
In this case the writer for some strange reason, maybe poor grammar, who knows, has chosen to use the present progressive tense “is flying” in relation to an activity which the team will perform or do “tomorrow”. Clearly this future action will require the predicate to be in the future tense so “will fly” should be used instead of “is flying” in the sentence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pickarooney
Interesting theory. What's it based on?
This is so disingenuous it reads like trolling. The use of the present continuous to describe actions in the near future is an extremely common feature of English to the extent that "I will go to the cinema later" or "I will have lunch with Julie tomorrow" sound positively foreign compared to the present continuous equivalents.

Just to pick up one one point, one/we/you/I can say (it can be said):
When I retire in five/ten years time, I am going to live in Spain.
In thirty years time, I am going to retire.

Since when is five or ten years time "the near future"; or fifty years time?

The present continuous form is often used (and is grammatically correct) to indicate an intention to do something in the future. The future simple does not imply intention - it is fact. "When I retire in five/ten years time I will live in Spain."

pickarooney wrote: »

To go + verb is a different construction to present continuous as future. There is no such thing as a factual future outside of quantum mechanics.

Agreed, "going to" is a different construction.

I am retiring in ten years time. That is my intention and not in the near future.

Enkidu

odds_on wrote: »

However, English is an ever evolving language (probably more so than any other language)

Unlikely, English has undergone relatively little modifications (from an objective perspective) in the last six hundred years compared to several other languages. English adds new nouns quite quickly and in this regard is quite fast (possibly the fastest, although if you normalise for average speaker use this would not be the case) however other language have undergone complete restructuring of their grammar.

pickarooney

odds_on wrote: »

Agreed, "going to" is a different construction.

I am retiring in ten years time. That is my intention and not in the near future.

Fair enough, I can't really dispute that.

Enkidu wrote: »

Unlikely, English has undergone relatively little modifications (from an objective perspective) in the last six hundred years compared to several other languages. English adds new nouns quite quickly and in this regard is quite fast (possibly the fastest, although if you normalise for average speaker use this would not be the case) however other language have undergone complete restructuring of their grammar.

Would you say that the language itself was reconstructed or just that the rules were formalised to reflect the way it was actually spoken?

P. Breathnach

odds_on wrote: »

I am retiring in ten years time. That is my intention and not in the near future.

pickarooney wrote: »

Fair enough, I can't really dispute that.

It's pushing the boundaries a bit, though. I think that most people would express such a future plan or intention in different terms, such as "I plan to retire..." or "I expect to retire...".

To my mind, the proximate future is a shorter term that ten years. How short depends on context: "I am retiring in September" does not jar, whereas "I am going to the cinema in September" does seem a bit odd (not ungrammatical, just odd).

odds_on

pickarooney wrote: »

Fair enough, I can't really dispute that.

Would you say that the language itself was reconstructed or just that the rules were formalised to reflect the way it was actually spoken?

IMO, it is the latter, rules get changed to reflect usage. However, it could also be said that there are two sets of rules. The original rules and the "modern" rules to reflect the way the language is used.

I think, maybe a prime example is in the use of a comma between several adjectives. I was taught (yes, I was in class that day!) that there is a comma between them. Modern thinking is that there is no comma separating them.

It just goes to prove how hard it can be for a non-native speaker to learn English.

It's pushing the boundaries a bit, though. I think that most people would express such a future plan or intention in different terms, such as "I plan to retire..." or "I expect to retire...".

Agreed, somewhat exaggerated but just to prove the point.
Normally, the I am going to ...... construction would be more usual in this case. I have not come across many books that teach about "the near future". There is a future intention (which usually implies a near future though could also be more distant) where the present continuous is used. Then, there is a future determined, something that will happen in the future in which case the future tense is used.