Search results for 'tag:Singular nouns tag:Regards' matching tags 'Singular nouns' and 'Regards'

Re: There is/are a infinity

Hoa Thai — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:50:18 GMT

Hi,

I once heard a debate about this too. Here are the arguments of the two sides:

1. The one that goes for are said that: if are is used for a hundred or more, then are must be used for infinity since infinity is greater than one hundred or any countable number.

2. The other side argued that: hundred / thousand is countable (i.e., hundreds / thousands), but infinity is uncountable (there is one and only one); thus, infinity is treated as singular noun and is is more appropriate.

I still wonder who is right - but I follow the dictionary.

Best Regards,
Hoa Thai

Re: Why this way?

Avangi — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 03:43:09 GMT

Hi Believer,

After reading through the thread again I feel the following remark by CJ is the key to your original issue:

Using those singular nouns without articles conceptualizes them as abstract ideas.

I believe it also unlocks your enigmatic question:

Is there any guideline to this usage of a certain word for its functional meaning based on what it represents to our perception of meaning?

Regards, - A.

Re: one or two was

Hoa Thai — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:57:57 GMT

Avangi wrote:
Good morning, Hoa Thai,

I appreciate the research. I think your second example is a little bit different, but I'm not sure I can explain it. The gist of it is, ten years ago you might have gotten one or two [things] while now you get twelve. Since the verb is "to be" you can exchange the subject with the predicate nominative and the meaning is the same: "Betty is my sister. My sister is Betty." So your sentence could read, "A decade ago, the norm [the normal amount] was one or two." Or you could say, "The amount was two or three." "Norm" and "amount" are singular nouns and would take the singular verb "was." I think it would be like saying, "The score was two or three," and then turning it around and saying, "Two or three was the score." Nobody would say, "Two or three were the score." But I don't know how to justify it formally.

Regards, - A.

(Thanks, Philip)

P.S. Looking back at Jack London's piece, we missed one of his baddies: "Most of those oyster pirates was shot or died in jail." "Most" is a plural noun, like "many", and takes the plural verb, "were."

Hi Avangi,

Your "exchanging the subject with the predicate nominative" comment reinforces what I learned but did not often pay attention.

Thank you for spending your time helping me to think a bit deeper.

Best Regards,
Hoa Thai

Re: one or two was

Avangi — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:05:40 GMT

Good morning, Hoa Thai,

I appreciate the research. I think your second example is a little bit different, but I'm not sure I can explain it. The gist of it is, ten years ago you might have gotten one or two [things] while now you get twelve. Since the verb is "to be" you can exchange the subject with the predicate nominative and the meaning is the same: "Betty is my sister. My sister is Betty." So your sentence could read, "A decade ago, the norm [the normal amount] was one or two." Or you could say, "The amount was two or three." "Norm" and "amount" are singular nouns and would take the singular verb "was." I think it would be like saying, "The score was two or three," and then turning it around and saying, "Two or three was the score." Nobody would say, "Two or three were the score." But I don't know how to justify it formally.

Regards, - A.

(Thanks, Philip)

P.S. Looking back at Jack London's piece, we missed one of his baddies: "Most of those oyster pirates was shot or died in jail." "Most" is a plural noun, like "many", and takes the plural verb, "were."

Re: Difference between sale and sales

Osee — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 05:58:04 GMT

But how about "teacherS unions" in the following sentence from Voice of American (http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/archive/2007-09/2007-09-26-voa2.cfm)?

Attempts at merit pay for American teachers have failed in many cases because of resistance from teachers unions or budget cuts.

By Hoa Thai's logic below, it should be interpreted as the unions are responsible for teachers, right? But it could be possible that there exists a union consisting of teachers for communication of teaching skills or other purposes, so for such a union, it's name should be teacher union instead of teacherS union?

Hoa Thai wrote:
Hello,

I believe that we have been talking about compound noun, in which the preceded word could be singular or plural and acts as an adjective. I also believe that it is up to people, who want to convey their message / idea, to sensibly use whatever mode they want. Let us look at the compound nouns in questions, 'sale engineer' vs. 'sales engineer', to see if we can get their messages.

Sales Engineer - An engineer who is responsible for answering technical questions to sales department and clients. The key-idea is responsibility. Not often, a company or an engineer wants to convey a message to other people that s/he is responsible for one single item / product / client! Using singular noun seems to reduce his / her image; and no company wants to give such a title to their employees and in turn conveys poor company's image. Thus, 'sales engineer' is better than 'sale engineer' in that sense. However, 'sale engineer' should be okay if one wants to be playful or really has a good reason to express such an idea. To show the legitimacy of using either singular or plural noun as an adjective in the responsibile for meaning one more time, here are a few examples:

- Service vs. Services: UNICCO Service Company vs. BJ Services Company
- Product vs. Products: Colder Product Company vs. P&G Products Company, Product Manager vs. Products Manager

How about 'Student Math-Club' and 'Students Math-Club'?
Student Math-Club - A club organized for the students to study math. Here, the key-idea is not about responsibility but belonging (i.e., Students' Math-Club). Thus, it is more natural to use singular mode (less bearing and of course w/ fewer characters).

I hope that my two cents do not confuse the issue.
Best Regards,
Hoa Thai

Re: Difference between sale and sales

Hoa Thai — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 01:39:12 GMT

Hello,

I believe that we have been talking about compound noun, in which the preceded word could be singular or plural and acts as an adjective. I also believe that it is up to people, who want to convey their message / idea, to sensibly use whatever mode they want. Let us look at the compound nouns in questions, 'sale engineer' vs. 'sales engineer', to see if we can get their messages.

Sales Engineer - An engineer who is responsible for answering technical questions to sales department and clients. The key-idea is responsibility. Not often, a company or an engineer wants to convey a message to other people that s/he is responsible for one single item / product / client! Using singular noun seems to reduce his / her image; and no company wants to give such a title to their employees and in turn conveys poor company's image. Thus, 'sales engineer' is better than 'sale engineer' in that sense. However, 'sale engineer' should be okay if one wants to be playful or really has a good reason to express such an idea. To show the legitimacy of using either singular or plural noun as an adjective in the responsibile for meaning one more time, here are a few examples:

- Service vs. Services: UNICCO Service Company vs. BJ Services Company
- Product vs. Products: Colder Product Company vs. P&G Products Company, Product Manager vs. Products Manager

How about 'Student Math-Club' and 'Students Math-Club'?
Student Math-Club - A club organized for the students to study math. Here, the key-idea is not about responsibility but belonging (i.e., Students' Math-Club). Thus, it is more natural to use singular mode (less bearing and of course w/ fewer characters).

I hope that my two cents do not confuse the issue.
Best Regards,
Hoa Thai

Re: That vs Which

Aster — Fri, 19 Aug 2005 17:26:17 GMT

Hi All ,

Thanks for that wonderful explanation Which( surrounded by commas is used to describe better ) and "that" is used to constrict the selection.

This however does not happen in all cases.

I wanted to get a little more clarity on this with regards to the question below.

Here is a question in Grammar

Approximately seventy-five percent of the global freshwater supply is stored in glaciers, which cover roughtly ten percent of land area.

Which of the below is the correct option and why

1) is stored in glaciers, which cover roughly ten percent of land area.

2) is stored in glaciers, which covers roughly ten percent of land area.

3) is stored in glaciers, that covers roughly ten percent of land area

4) are stored in glaciers, which cover roughly ten percent of land area

5) are stored in glaciers, which covers roughly ten percent of land area.

It is easy to see that (4) and (5) cannot be right as they start with are.

Also (1) cannot be the choice because we are refering to global freshwater supply , a singular noun and thus should be

specified by covers

Now comes the difficult question how do i choose between (2) & (3). What is the right answer.

This is more or less refering to the which and that question.

Re: Difference between American and British English

YoungCalifornian — Sun, 27 Mar 2005 08:57:41 GMT

Uh, no offense but their are a whole lot of misconceptions about American English in this thread. The "fag" thing has already been pointed out, so I'll let that one be.

"The main difference between British English and American English is that in the former there is perfect grammar even in the spoken form. But in the latter, there is no grammar at all and everybody can speak as they like. "

Well I know that Americans are generally less strict about the rules of grammar, but that doesn't mean that there are no rules. In reality, both English variants have pretty much the same grammar rules, Americans are just less formal in their speech. One of the few true differences (not tendencies) that exists between the two is the use of the verb "to be" in regards to collective nouns. For instance, an American would say, "The Austrian ski team is the best I've ever seen," where a Brit would say, "The Austrian ski team are the best I've ever seen." The American views the team as a singular noun, while the Brit views the team as a plural noun.

I've also seen in mentioned frequently (not just here) that in America we say "cab" where the British say "taxi" and "Fall" where the British say "Autumn." This isn't true, at least in regards to American English. In fact, American use both "taxi" and "cab" as well as "Fall" and "Autumn" interchangably. You would be just as likely to hear one as the other.

Re: "There/Here is" with plural subject allowed?

eagle2l84 — Mon, 03 Jan 2005 22:56:53 GMT

Hi,

it's me, Ralf, the starter of this thread. Thanks for your answers so far. A post in another thread pointed me to the "American Heritage - Book of English Usage", where I found this section:

According to the standard rule, when the pronoun there precedes a verb such as be, seem, or appear, the verb agrees in number with the following grammatical subject: There is a great Italian deli across the street. There are fabulous wildflowers in the hills. There seems to be a blueberry pie cooking in the kitchen. There seem to be a few trees between the green and me. But people often disregard this rule and use a singular verb with a plural subject, especially when speaking or when using the contraction thereâs. The Usage Panel dislikes this construction, however. Seventy-nine percent reject the sentence Thereâs only three things you need to know about this book. But when thereâs is followed by a compound subject whose first element is singular, the panel feels differently. Fifty-six percent of the Usage Panel accepts the sentence In each of us thereâs a dreamer and a realist, and 32 percent more accept it in informal usage. The panel is even more accepting of the sentence When you get to the stop light, thereâs a gas station on the left and a grocery store on the right; 58 percent accept it in formal usage, while 37 percent more accept it in informal usage. Although this usage would seem to violate the rules of subject and verb agreement, the attraction of the verb to the singular noun phrase following it is so strong that it is hard to avoid the construction entirely.

While this clarifies the usage for AmE, I still wonder how it used around the world.

Hoping for more to come,

cu

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.