Re: I need help with a word

Clive — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:29:57 GMT

Hi,

Is the word "eligibilities" actually a word? I've come across it in a document at work, and it feels wrong to me. It is the title of a section of the document. The section lists the requirements to be eligible. Any help would be appreciated. I don't want to change it if it's correct.

Since 'eligibility' is a word, I suppose you could say it in the plural, but it sounds odd. Such awkward terms are typical of business English. If I saw this title, I would be unclear as to what the section contained. I suggest that a much clearer title would be 'Eligibility Requirements'.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: When to use 'is' and 'are' has caused an argument in the office

Casi — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:08:04 GMT

But. . . both you and your boss are correct. Consider,

(A) My family (my dad, mom, and bother) are here with me. (non-collective noun)
(B) My family (the group) is here with me. (collective noun)

(C) British Coal, they who own and run the company, are. . .
(D) British Coal, the company, is. . .

With regards to which of the two is more common in Business English, well, it would be the latter, D , but that's not to say D is the correct choice, or should be taken as such.

Choice C is worthy of defence, not because it's what tradition in such and such an area prescribes, but for what it contributes to Business. The non-collective us(ag)e 'British Coal are' expresses a human referent; i.e., they who own, run, and work for the company, whereas the collective us(ag)e 'British Coal is' does away with the human connection; i.e., British Coal is an "it", a thing.

We are our language.

In today's world, we complain about being treated as "it", as a number, and yet, ironically enough it's OK to defend the source of that problem by using majority rules as a defence. We're told we should say, "British Coal is" because a company is a thing, and we're told we shouldn't say, "British Coal are" because a company, being a thing, is not human. Or is it?

The way in which we use language, as you know, expresses our perception of the world around us. Change the word order in the world of language and look how it filters through to the order of importance in the human world. We are our language, and for that reason C is more than worthy of defence, specifically for the sake of the semantics it houses.

We could learn a thing or two from your boss' perception because 'he' seems to have a panoramic view: What's so odd about viewing a company that's run by people as people who run a company? The latter is not only more direct, it places what's most important first, and the very instant the most important thing is moved to the back, and added to 'by'--see ya--is the very instant we, its referent, become secondary, and no longer of primary importance--aside from a primary number.

Asking whether 'British Coal' or any other company name, for that matter, should be viewed as a singular noun or as a plural noun serves only to perpetuate the erroneous assumption that there's actually a correct answer when it comes to semantic interpretation. Argue if you will, but there's really no need to hash it out. The solution is always in the question: You and your boss are correct. It's your perceptions that differ.

Keep the human connection. Vote C. "British Coal are. . . "

P.S. In Japan, what citizens see as 'green'--or is it 'blue'?--we here in North America see as 'blue'--or is it 'green'?. On more than one occasion, you might hear people talking about the traffic lights:

Max from the USA: It's blue, isn't it?
Pat from Canada: Well, it's kind of an aqua-green.
Yuki from Japan: It's green.

Not to mention, ask any school-aged child in Japan what colour the sun is, and they'll tell you it's red. Perceptions will differ.

Search results for 'tag:Plurals tag:Business English' matching tags 'Plurals' and 'Business English'

Re: I need help with a word

Re: When to use 'is' and 'are' has caused an argument in the office