5 ms·
While I understand computer scientists are not always the best writers, phrases like "Amazon do have a breaking point" make it hard to continue reading this art
by rabbidruster 13y ago
While I understand computer scientists are not always the best writers, phrases like "Amazon do have a breaking point" make it hard to continue reading this article.
- mattdeboard 13y agoMight have been using it like "The cattle do graze", or "Black Sabbath do have a new album coming out".
- philwelch 13y agoI'm curious what you find wrong with that sentence.
- icedchai 13y agoWe're from America. We speak Murican.
- spicyj 13y agoIf it's the plural conjugation you're complaining about, know that that's correct in British English: http://english.stackexchange.com/a/1339/50 http://english.stackexchange.com/a/1339/50.
- rabbidruster 13y agoThanks for the link. It sounded extremely weird to me. I didn't know corp were often plural nouns in British English.
- johndonsu 13y agoYour arrogance is astounding. This is why people hate Americans. An English person, writing English in an English way, and you say you're not going to continue reading. Do you require him to write like an American? Why should an English person, writing their own language, have to follow your conventions? "I didn't know" Well then don't start shouting your mouth off! If you don't know, keep quiet.
- detst 13y agoYour misunderstanding and dramatic response is astounding. It's ignorance, not arrogance. Say what you want about his reaction to the perceived poor grammar but it's nothing more than that.
- johndonsu 13y agoIf he didn't understand why it was written like that, how about trying to find out why, before posting a snarky message?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- mpyne 13y agoFor the same reason you didn't bother to figure out whether it was ignorance or malice on his part before jumping to your own convenient conclusion, I would imagine.
- rabbidruster 13y agoAgain sorry I offended you. I wont make this mistake in the future.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- rabbidruster 13y agoI had a hard time reading that phrase, and I thought it was because he didn't spend enough time editing the article. I like to think I am a cultured person, but I truly didn't know it was grammatically correct in British English. Don't judge all Americans just because I am naive.
- dasil003 13y agoWow you sound extremely angry. There must be a deeper issue at play here because this is way out of proportion to the comment you are responding to.
- eru 13y agoFor some more fun with American English, try http://fine.me.uk/Emonds/ http://fine.me.uk/Emonds/
- asveikau 13y agoInteresting link. I'm not a linguist but parsing these sentences as an American reader, I feel a bit like this page's examples are playing games with word order and omission. The cited "prestige" grammar sounds less intuitive to me not because of the pronoun used, but because of word order and words that are left out. Example cited as correct prestige grammar: > They didn't give anyone that worked less than she a raise. That sounds a little weird to my American ears, but "worked less than she did" sounds totally correct. "Worked less than her" (cited as correct non-prestige) sounds a bit casual and informal, not sounding too jarring but not what I'd expect in decent writing. Similar to the other example of "us commuters". If I'm talking to someone I wouldn't blink if they said this, but I wouldn't see it in the New York Times. (Though this also reminds me of phrases like "me too" or "it's me", which despite being inconsistent with distinctions between subject and object in other phrases, you'd hear a lot more than "I as well" or "it is I".) > Mary and him are late. Sounds very wrong to me. Thinking back to my childhood it was pretty common for kids to be a bit "confused" about using pronouns this way before 10 years old or so, so maybe there is something to the author's statement that kids learn the non-prestige form and then the educated ones are "corrected" later. > Mary and he are late. This still sounds weird. I'd say "he and Mary are late". > her and us > she and we These sound pretty clumsy regardless of which is supposed to be used.
- pcl 13y agoIn British English, a company is plural, not singular. So this construct is correct in some dialects. And he also uses 'armour', which is again a British construct, so I'd guess he's just not using American English. (I wonder if British law considers a corporation to be a person to the degree that US law does, or if this plural view of a corporation is pervasive in law as well as in grammar.)
- mpclark 13y agoThis is oft-repeated, but not actually true. Most people in the UK who care about these things (for instance, sub editors in the printed press) hold that companies are singular entities. The confusion comes with sports teams, which are commonly referred to in the plural, so "Microsoft is" but "Manchester United are". Edit: For example, here's what the Guardian's style guide says on the matter: http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/c#id-3022716 http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/c#id-3022716 Of course, with something as flexible and constantly evolving (and as used and abused) as the English language, it is usually possible to find examples and counter-examples for just about anything. There are also edge cases; the Guardian refers to police forces as plural entities, I believe. Suffice to say, when I was running a back bench, singular was the order of the day when it came to company names.
- pinneycolton 13y agoIt's common in the UK to use "do" when referring to a collective. The author is from the UK.
- mynameishere 13y agoCome on. Quit downmodding people for a common misunderstanding. To any American "Amazon do" really does sound off.
- mynameishere 13y agoCome on. Quit downmodding people for a common misunderstanding. To any American "Amazon do" really does sound off.