[Gigabomber]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imyourzero Many people will say "My Total BitHead arrived with a defect, but HeadRoom is taking care of me and is allowing me to exchange it." Well, that's not correct. The right thing to say is "HeadRoom are taking care of me." because you are referring to a collective group of people. The company name isn't taking care of you, the building isn't taking care of you, the people at the company are.

Funny part is that a corporation has the rights of an individual through the court systems. Some of it is linguistic transformation it seems (can't imagine people referring to a corporation as anything but a group one-hundred years ago).

 

[Langrath]

I am glad that this question obviously was a little tricky. It's not only my bad English!

Georg

 

[bahamaman]

Actually, imyourzero, it is quite appropriate to speak of a company as a singular entity, and it would be grammatically correct to say that "the company is taking care of me". When you phrase it that way, the implicit assumption is that the company's agents (employees) are actually doing the work.

In that vein, it really bothers when someone says something like "HeadRoom is really doing their best" when it should be "HeadRoom is really doing its best.

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langrath You say "headphones are" But if you name it: "PX100 are" or "PX100 is". Which is best? Georg

Don't pay to much attention at the spelling and grammar here, we make a lot of typo and a lot of intentional mistakes, forums are the last place to learn language as a general rule, acronyms, slang, chat jargon etc...will confuse even the most experts in the matter....

 

[Langrath]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sovkiller Don't pay to much attention at the spelling and grammar here

No. You are right. It was only my own interest. If I have understood it. "PX100 are very pretty" "or" PX100 is very pretty". Both are right. Or?
Georg

 

[enemigo]

The PX100s are
The PX100 is

It's up to you wether you talk about the PX100 as one phone or you talk about the properties av every PX100.

Knut

 

[rauer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sovkiller ...acronyms, slang, chat jargon etc...will confuse even the most experts in the matter....

I have to say that I've been pretty puzzled with some of the terms here. Certainly not the English I learned at school in the stone age. However, I've found the Urban Dictionary a good site trying to decipher some posts.

 

[Jahn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langrath No. You are right. It was only my own interest. If I have understood it. "PX100 are very pretty" "or" PX100 is very pretty". Both are right. Or? Georg

The PX100 is very pretty. - one headphone.

The PX100s are very pretty. - more than one.

Oh and above my use of "PX100's" was questioned a bit - in that sentence, "were" applied to "comparisons" with the comparisons being in the plural, and the " 's " meant the PX100 was possessive of the comparisons, with the PX100 being in the singular. If there was more than one PX100 being compared, it would have been possessive in the plural, or " PX100s'. "

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn If the PX100 was a Grado, it would be lower than the SR60.

If the PX100 were a Grado, it would be lower than the SR60.

Quote:

Ah, if only the PX100's bass was a little better...

were

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangraman If you take trousers/pants, they're effectively one thing but are referred to as s. But you can say "trouser leg". No-one says "hey, what do you think of my new pant?" But they can occasionally be called pant. When I'm buying MX apparel for example, it's pretty common to see "Shift Recon Pant".

and of course, the million dollar question:

why is it a pair of panties, but only one bra?

 

[Jahn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VicAjax If the PX100 were a Grado, it would be lower than the SR60. were

If the dog was a cat, it would meow.

If the PX100 was a Grado, it would be lower than the SR60.

Ah, if only the dog's bark was a little quieter...

Ah, if only the PX100's bass was a little better...

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn If the dog was a cat, it would meow. If the PX100 was a Grado, it would be lower than the SR60. Ah, if only the dog's bark was a little quieter... Ah, if only the PX100's bass was a little better...

aarrrrrgghh! you taunt my grammarian ears!!!!

[size=xx-small]were were were![/size]

 

[Imyourzero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahamaman Actually, imyourzero, it is quite appropriate to speak of a company as a singular entity, and it would be grammatically correct to say that "the company is taking care of me". When you phrase it that way, the implicit assumption is that the company's agents (employees) are actually doing the work.

In that case, I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing that out--I must have been wrongly informed.

I can't help but think there are cases where it is proper to refer to a group of people under a common name in the plural form, though.

"Microsoft are releasing a patch to fix some security flaws."

"AC/DC are coming to San Diego during their tour."

"Grado Labs are coming out with a new revision of the SR325."

Hmmm...now that I'm thinking about it, none of those sound right. I think I'm overanalyzing it. I could've sworn that there are times when you're supposed to use "are" instead of "is" when referring to a single entity that consists of or employs a group of people. I'm going to have to sleep on it.

 

[bangraman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VicAjax and of course, the million dollar question: why is it a pair of panties, but only one bra?

It's probably because men usually like to press the contents together.

 

[camaronkazi]

Headphones are a pair (except for the Beyer DT 108 G_200/50 perhaps). But the word pair is singular.

As an example; I own some headphones but my favourite pair is the PX100s. The PX100s' bass is their weak point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn If the PX100 was a Grado, it would be lower than the SR60.

Even if the word were singular, it would still take the verb "were" on account of the subjunctive mood.