3 ms·
Google, in acceding to the Authors Guild's requests, have attained a legal near-monopoly on searching and distributing the majority of books ever published. I
by indiejade 18y ago
Google, in acceding to the Authors Guild's requests, have attained a legal near-monopoly on searching and distributing the majority of books ever published.
Incorrect grammar. Should read: "Google, in acceding to the Authors Guild's requests, has attained a legal near-monopoly on searching and distributing the majority of books ever published."
Company names should always be referred to in the singular object form, as in "it", not "they" or "them".
Mr. Doctorow, is Boing Boing hiring any editors? ;)
- dchest 18y agoNot in British English. Though, he writes "Google alone has easy legal access" later. Doctorow is Canadian, so he uses both :-)
- pierrefar 18y agoNot really a British thing. The University of Nottingham (which is most certainly British) has this in its style guide: "similarly, use the company is rather than the company are" [1] The Economist (a publication of a British company) has a style guide that has this gem: "A government, a party, a company (whether Tesco or Marks and Spencer) and a partnership (Skidmore, Owings & Merrill) are all it and take a singular verb. So does a country, even if its name looks plural." [2] [1] http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/public-affairs/uon-style-book/singular-plural.htm http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/public-affairs/uon-style-book/si... [2] http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=805687 http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=...
- dchest 18y agoIsn't it impressive that languages evolve?!
- indiejade 18y agoDude, I agree with you, but who is dishing out the hatred? For the sake of Pete, why have I been maliciously down-voted?
- jordyhoyt 18y agoFirst, grammar correction is hardly adding to the discussion about the article's content. Second, it is a fairly common practice to pluralize the names of companies in countries that are not the United States. It throws me every time I see it too, but I kind of like it becuase it helps me remember a company isn't some monolithic idea, but a collection of individuals.
- sho 18y agoBecause people find useless pendantry an annnoying waste of time? The text is on a third party site! What do you expect anyone here to do about it? Mail the author if you feel so strongly about it. In your comments here it would be better to respond to the meat of the argument presented, not any minor grammatical errors it may or may not contain.
- indiejade 18y agoNot. We on YC News respect style, in various forms. We don't respect whining. I've been on YC News longer than you and can see exactly what you're doing; it's not cool.
- dbul 18y agoI have to agree here. Comments that add no value whatsoever ought to be down voted. At worst, your comment should have been left at 1 point. Personally, I thought it added some intellectual value raising the question "have or has?" And with a click...
- sho 18y agoYou asked a question, and I answered it. I have no idea exactly what you imagine I am "doing" beyond that but you are welcome to share your no-doubt illuminating insights. The age of your account is irrelevant and I am baffled as to why you might venture it as some kind of point in your favour. Do you make a habit of checking out the profile of anyone you respond to, colouring your argument according to their perceived seniority? Anyway, your attempt at rank-pulling is as misguided as your attempt at language policing - this is not my first account on this site.