were
― Autumn Almanac, Monday, 2 June 2008 19:04 (4 years ago) Permalink
The kinetics of peanut butter and jelly were the focus of a recent research paper.
The kinetics were the focus of a recent research paper.
Peanut butter and jelly were the focus of a recent research paper.
― Autumn Almanac, Monday, 2 June 2008 19:05 (4 years ago) Permalink
Oh good, I'm awake at 5am discussing the kinetics of peanut butter and jelly.
― Autumn Almanac, Monday, 2 June 2008 19:06 (4 years ago) Permalink
What I'm saying is that if they are separate then "were" is right whether or not you follow the ruling braveclub linked to:
The names of numerous scientific disciplines end in “s”, even though they are singular words (e.g., ballistics, chemometrics, dynamics, genetics, genomics, kinetics, mathematics, physics, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics). These words should be followed by singular verb forms.
― Alba, Monday, 2 June 2008 19:10 (4 years ago) Permalink
What I'm saying is the 'of x and y' part of the sentence has no influence on the 'was/were' part.
― Autumn Almanac, Monday, 2 June 2008 19:13 (4 years ago) Permalink
It does if you treat the kinetics of a single thing as singular.
― Alba, Monday, 2 June 2008 19:14 (4 years ago) Permalink
Oh I see.
― Autumn Almanac, Monday, 2 June 2008 19:15 (4 years ago) Permalink
what the eff is "exibility"?!
it is in a document abt a piece of technology + service of it and the document was originally in german - sentence is like "you can expect more from our company - more exibility, more quality, and more service."
maybe they mean "flexibility"? but that doesn't seem right the whole doc is making my morning tho, i have to say
― rrrobyn, Friday, 6 June 2008 15:17 (4 years ago) Permalink
If you were talking about a band that broke up years ago, would you say "their hit songs include X, Y, and Z" or "their hit songs included X, Y, and Z."
Without the word "hit," I'm comfortable putting it in the present tense, since the songs still exist, so I guess what I'm asking is, is a hit song always a hit song or is it only a hit song when it hits?
― jaymc, Friday, 13 June 2008 20:44 (4 years ago) Permalink
I thought if you were American, you'd say "Its hit songs"...
― Alba, Friday, 13 June 2008 20:45 (4 years ago) Permalink
(anyway, I'd say "included")
― Alba, Friday, 13 June 2008 20:46 (4 years ago) Permalink
"Its hit songs" is probably correct for bands that are singular, like Fleetwood Mac or Van Halen, but it sounds so weird, I usually try to avoid the pronoun altogether and say "The band's hit songs." "Their hit songs" is always correct for the Beatles or the Strokes.
― jaymc, Friday, 13 June 2008 20:50 (4 years ago) Permalink
Yeah, 'its' for a collective noun is not exclusively American.
― Autumn Almanac, Saturday, 14 June 2008 00:02 (4 years ago) Permalink
I don't want to live in a world in which Gorillaz is a collective noun.
― Alba, Saturday, 14 June 2008 00:10 (4 years ago) Permalink
Ah, yes, it gets dodgy when the band name is a plural. I get headaches from this.
― Autumn Almanac, Saturday, 14 June 2008 00:18 (4 years ago) Permalink
(this? that?)
Correct usage would be "Gorillaz' hit songz"
― Hurting 2, Saturday, 14 June 2008 00:20 (4 years ago) Permalink
ARGH THE S POS I HATE THE S POS
― Autumn Almanac, Saturday, 14 June 2008 00:20 (4 years ago) Permalink
unless it's 'the Gorillaz' hit songs'
i luv gorilla'z their my favorite
― Hurting 2, Saturday, 14 June 2008 00:23 (4 years ago) Permalink
i brought there cd and bought it home
― Autumn Almanac, Saturday, 14 June 2008 00:25 (4 years ago) Permalink
I saw an X-apostrophe the other day in a newspaper and it kind of threw me.
― jaymc, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 19:42 (4 years ago) Permalink
I have a question. Do you blog "on" something or "about" something? Also why do some people say "a blog" when they mean "a post on a blog" and which is correct?
― admrl, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 19:44 (4 years ago) Permalink
Personally, I don't like the sound of any of these
― admrl, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 19:45 (4 years ago) Permalink
Also why do some people say "a blog" when they mean "a post on a blog"
God, I hate this so much.
― jaymc, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 19:46 (4 years ago) Permalink
I know! But I have to grapple with this head on and resolve it
― admrl, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 19:46 (4 years ago) Permalink
when you write a BLOG ENTRY or BLOG POST, you blog ABOUT something
― 69, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 19:46 (4 years ago) Permalink
ok
― admrl, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 19:47 (4 years ago) Permalink
also have you noticed that people say "gchat" now?
i always think the ON construction is awful, like "a class on shakespeare," instead of "a class about shakespeare"
― 69, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 19:47 (4 years ago) Permalink
I think both "on" and "about" are acceptable. I mean, I don't consider "blog" any different from "write." In both cases, though, "about" sounds a little better to my ears.
― jaymc, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 19:49 (4 years ago) Permalink
I agree
― admrl, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 19:49 (4 years ago) Permalink
but i mean also fuck shakespeare dude is so olddd
― 69, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 19:49 (4 years ago) Permalink
Partly because certain organisations, such as MY OWN and the BBC encourage them to do so.
― Alba, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 20:43 (4 years ago) Permalink
bummer
― 69, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 20:45 (4 years ago) Permalink
From my company's blog, which is written by a number of guest contributors:
"In my last blog, I concluded that Fred Thompson was the logical candidate for Republicans to turn to this year."
― jaymc, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 20:47 (4 years ago) Permalink
^^ wording is the least of the problems there
― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 20:54 (4 years ago) Permalink
Ha.
― jaymc, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 20:55 (4 years ago) Permalink
(To be fair, that post is from Jan. 2, but still.)
But umm seriously is it possible that the bad style here is based on trying to make "blog" function more along the lines of the "log" that's part of it? I would still use "(web) log entry," but I can get slightly closer to imagining someone using "log" in that singular way.
― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 20:56 (4 years ago) Permalink
You know what else I hate? When there is one store/restarant called "store/restaurant X" and then they open ANOTHER store called "store/restaurant X TOO. Why do they do that???
Also this sort of thing can lead to some funny constructions. Maybe not the best example but the suburb where I am from had a ladies clothing store called "Not Quite New" (used clothing, get it?) which then opened a sister (brother?) store called "Not Quite New For Men"!
― admrl, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 21:06 (4 years ago) Permalink
It clearly should have been called "Not Quite New TOO (For Men)"
― admrl, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 21:07 (4 years ago) Permalink
xxp I'd actually think the opposite -- that if people were to think about the term's origins, they'd realize that it doesn't make sense to call a blog post a blog any more than it would make sense to call an entry in a log a log. A log is always a log of component parts.
― jaymc, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 21:07 (4 years ago) Permalink
Adam, there's a clothing store in Chicago called Shirts on Sheffield, located, unsurprisingly enough, on Sheffield Avenue. When they opened up another location, this time on Broadway, they called it Shirts Off Sheffield.
― jaymc, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 21:10 (4 years ago) Permalink
haha
― admrl, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 21:13 (4 years ago) Permalink
Aww, Shirts on Sheffield spawned?
― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 21:27 (4 years ago) Permalink
an elegy for copy editors
― tipsy mothra, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 21:31 (4 years ago) Permalink
Do you blog "on" something or "about" something?
Once you turn that noun into a verb, everything that follows is a disaster.
― Autumn Almanac, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 21:43 (4 years ago) Permalink
yesterday i couldn't even blog on, it was so frustrating
― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 19 June 2008 00:45 (4 years ago) Permalink
This week's New Yorker has a shockingly obvious misspelling/typo in the Seabrook article! I was QUITE taken aback. Is this the first sign of the copyediting apocalypse?
― quincie, Thursday, 19 June 2008 13:31 (4 years ago) Permalink