5 ms·
It's not even grammatically correct! "Techcrunch is full of shit" would be right.
by j2d2 18y ago
It's not even grammatically correct!
"Techcrunch is full of shit" would be right.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- 3pt14159 18y agoI can't see why you got down voted. That was my first thought when I read it. I reread it 5 or 6 times until I decided that I must be missing something. TechCrunch = a corporation A corporation = a legal person Singular, not plural!
- endtime 18y agoI can't see why you got down voted. Probably because his comment isn't interesting, isn't relevant, and doesn't contribute to discussion. There are all kinds of true but uninteresting comments one can make, but making them shouldn't be encouraged. Edit: I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but actively discouraging uninteresting comments is what keeps the signal:noise ratio high here.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- davidw 18y agoExactly. However, once upon a time, this site also had a tradition of not downvoting people all that much for comments that were simply a bit inane or misguided, rather than actively trolling or flaming.
- ramchip 18y agoI'd like to concur on that. I was a bit surprised when I got -4'd for stating that a website ad caused trouble on Opera (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=491583 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=491583). Perhaps I sounded harsh as well, but still, the goal was just to help...
- j2d2 18y agoJust look at how much chatter it created for something not relevant. Perhaps it's off-topic, but it was interesting to hear HN's views on what is and isn't correct.
- jackzombie 18y agoVery true. Proper grammar is important, and this forum is as good as any place to clear up any questions so that mistakes can be avoided in the future.
- scott_s 18y agoThe author is British: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_di...
- chiffonade 18y agoWhich is strange, because the whole concept behind the British invention of the "corporation" is to address a group of people as a singular entity.
- aristus 18y agoNot quite -- the underlying concept is a "company" in the sense of a troupe, band, eg "The King's Men", the "Dorrit's Chalk-Weavers", "Harold & Sons". The idea of a "corporate person" is much more recent, like 1880's, and I think started in the US.
- chiffonade 18y agoNo, you're wrong. The concept of corporate singularity started in the 1600s in England. From wikipedia: In the late seventeenth century, Stewart Kyd, the author of the first treatise on corporate law in English, defined a corporation as, "a collection of many individuals united into one body, under a special denomination, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested, by policy of the law, with the capacity of acting, in several respects, as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property..."
- jacquesm 18y agoactually, it started in Holland with the V.O.C.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- dunk010 18y agoPerhaps, you know, it might have been intentional......
- dustineichler 18y agoNoticed this too, but I think grammatically he used "are" in the inclusive sense that everyone at techcrunch _is_ full of sh*t. therefore, if you work their... it must be so.