|
I was hoping somebody would catch that. Neighbour too.
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended.
I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended.
Freedom doesn't mean the absence of things you don't like.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
I am so used to seeing "neighbour" spelled correctly that I didn't notice it as unusual. The only reason I noticed "colour" was that in C# I am constantly setting up Color objects and calling them "colour" something so I get reminded of the deficient US spelling almost every day!
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you mean efficient, not deficient 
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. As computer professionals, our job is to keep things elegant, simple and maintainable. Why would we put a completely superfluous "u" in a word that doesn't need it?
|
|
|
|
|
..but it does need it to allow correct pronunciation - another deficiency in the American version of an otherwise excellent language. Without the 'U' then the word should be pronounced "co-law". With the 'U' then the correct "colour" is clearly defined!
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, how about "co-lore" then?
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Let's just call it an "efficient deficiency", then. 
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
That's okay, I read enough news from the BBC that the 'u' occasionally sneaks into my own 'Americanized' english. 
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
|
|
|
|
|
Most of these types of questions can be answered by a remark made by a German teacher, some (many many) years ago:
The only rule in German without any exceptions is that there are no rules in German without exceptions.
Apply to English, and that should answer all your questions, past, present, and future.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Singular, because when you say "Texas Instruments makes...", you really mean "The company 'Texas Instruments' makes...".
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
I come to rever to companies as "they". That's not only the third-preson plural pronoun, that's also the third-person singular gender-agnostic pronoun. And the second role fits companies rather well. That results in the omission of the S.
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't read all of the responses yet, so I apologise if this is a repeat of someone else's response.
In America, corporations are plural entities; in the UK they are singular. It does not matter whether their name ends in an 's' or not.
So: IBM make electronic equipment in America; but Dyson makes electronic equipment in the UK.
Similarly: The US government are based in Washington DC; but the UK government is based in London.
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking as someone living in Midwest US since birth, what you have written is exactly wrong. Companies are singular entities with all the rights and responsibilities pertaining thereto. US governments have been singular since the American Civil War: it is well documented that prior to that, it was written as "the United States are"; after, it was written "the United States is".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Take "Twelve Roses is a nice book" - the name/title of something may be plural, but that does not make the something plural. One should read "The company 'Texas Instruments' makes ..."
|
|
|
|
|
I go with
"Texas Instruments makes electronic equipment"
You can imagine an implied noun of:
"Texas Instruments Corporation makes electronic equipment"
To consider:
"Texas Instruments' child corporations make electronic equipment"
How about this one:
"Texas' instruments make beautiful music"
or would it be
"Texas's instruments make beautiful music" ?
|
|
|
|
|
If everyone understands what is written (or said) then its correct. That's English.
Altough "Texas Instruments makes electronic equipment" sounds a lot smoother to the ears than
"Texas Instruments make electronic equipment" which grates on the auditory nerves!
|
|
|
|
|
There is or was a political movement in the U.S. saying that a corporation is not a person. The English grammar makes it clear. A corporation are a people, not a person. So, the political campaign are correct. 
|
|
|
|
|
I'd say you don't have enough project or projects. 
|
|
|
|
|
Context rules.
In one context, "Instruments" is a plural noun. In the context you presented, however, "Texas Instruments" is part of a name, and should be treated as a singular proper noun.
In the case of the abbreviated names you mentioned, the rule holds true. Since the context has not changed, neither does the singular vs plural sentence structure.
In a nutshell: if the context is that of plural entities, then use the plural sentence structure, but if the context is that of a singular entity, use the singular sentence structure.
Disclosure: I was born, raised, and educated in the U.S.A. (the country with the name that can be use in either singular or plural, depending on the context)
Money makes the world go round ... but documentation moves the money.
|
|
|
|
|
If you ask them, IBM *does not* stand for International Business Machines. It used to, but it hasn't for some time now. Same for 3M and probably others. The company that was International Business Machines ceased to exist probably sometime in the 70's due to branding and legal reasons. I think AT&T is the same thing.
And the answer for the "s" is that you use the "s" version any time it is a singular entity. So, Texas Instruments makes ICs. The reason is the modifier depends on the whole name not just the final "plural" word.
Do not get confused by the British (English). They have this strange (to Texans and other North Americans) habit of using the plural for any entity which could be construed as a plurality of people. That is true even in cases when the name of the entity would be singular.
|
|
|
|
|
Yup. I often (always?) hear Brits refer to bands and teams with 'are': The Beatles are; Abba are; Man U are; ... sounds weird to North Amer ears.
|
|
|
|
|
Seems clear to me. What if it was Texas Implements makes implements? Texas Implements implements implement as part of the token Texas Implements, which is singular for both implementations - implement and implements. Clear? 
|
|
|
|
|
In New Zealand the 's' should be used. Not to do so is in breach of some treaty, I believe.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
