ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

Ah, I see now; the "one in three ilxors" doesn't necessarily mean "one ilxor", it's a ratio, and suggests many people...my point about the difference in subjects in the two constructions stands tho!

xpost to self ... which doesn't actually matter? Depends on whether "different ways" or "the fact we are parsing in different ways" is the subject. Christ.

But Charlie's question is talking about "you", as in the reader, the one person being addressed by the author. That's not more than one person, in this sense at least. Not to me, anyway. Not that it matters in this particular instance, because the HAVE that he's querying relates to "the many people giving a shit about some BB contestants", not to "you" the reader and your place within that.

(btw, my work style guide has a misplaced apostrophe in one of its descriptions, which doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence)

This all reminds me of an old chestnut, "none" being singular or plural.

My paper's style guide flatly tells me that it is singular, but I think my sympathies lie with:

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-non2.htm

Not that it matters in this particular instance, because the HAVE that he's querying relates to "the many people giving a shit about some BB contestants", not to "you" the reader and your place within that

I was going to argue that you could parse this differently, and for a while there I was convinced you could. Now I'm not so sure. Fucking hell. This is why I hate grammar.

But Charlie's question is talking about "you", as in the reader, the one person being addressed by the author. That's not more than one person, in this sense at least. Not to me, anyway.

Yeeees ... but it's still fulfilling the semantic role of meaning "loads of people", isn't it?

Either way: I think you've summed it up better than anyone else has so far, ie with the comment I quoted at the top.

better than anyone else has so far

(Especially me.)

How can a word denoting nothing at all possibly be plural, logically speaking? Just asking, like...

"None of us speaks French" = right but uncommon ("None" = contraction of "not one")

"None of them know how to get home" = wrong but widespread (Recast as "Nobody knows how to get home" and it's obvious)

How can a word denoting nothing at all possibly be singular, either?

xpost to Charlie

1. For the same reason I've failed to explain properly above ... because "none of us can" effectively means "we as a group can't". From a psycholinguistic point of view, I'd suggest there's a good reason why your second example is wrong but widespread: because it "feels" right that the group is still the subject (and hence takes a plural verb form).

2. Is the concept of zero singular or plural anyway? Discuss :)

How can a word denoting nothing at all possibly be singular, either?

Ha, I like the fact we both came up with that notion. This is why you should stay and be part of the glorious group-production future, Alba: we can spend all day arguing about this shit.

Umm. That's really not going to convince you, is it?

As you were, troops - I posted that last query before clicking Alba's link. Turns out you can do both, depending on the sense, which makes me happy!

The Daily Telegraph is outsourcing subbing work to Australia for £45 a page

Ha. A mate and I considered setting up something like Pagemasters years ago. I'm actually quite glad we didn't, for all manner of reasons.

Anyway: fuck it, at least the stuff's getting subbed. But woah, "as little as £45"? Yesterday I did an eight-hour shift -- actually eight and a half, given I stayed late to fix fuck-ups -- and drew/subbed, what ... well, let's say the equivalent of four broadsheet pages. (I drew a total of seven and revised at least one more, but I had some subbing assistance. So I think "drew and subbed" four is just about fair).

Which means (does sums) ... FUCK ME, I AM CHEAP. There's not much chance of our place outsourcing to this lot in a hurry. Wow.

to fix fuck-ups

Not mine, I should add: rather more fundamental ones, such as the output pages not reaching the print plant.

Oh, and that was eight hours without anything that looked too like a break.

Jesus fucking wept.

Maybe moving back to Australia isn't such a bad idea after all!

How would you fix this sentence (from here) so it doesn't sound like most laptops can be recharged 997 times?

Its chief breakthrough is what Apple claims is an eight-hour battery that can be recharged 1,000 times (three times more than most laptops).

thrice as many times

triple the amount of most laptops ?

three times more than most laptops' can be

scratch that, I misunderstood

a 300% improvement on most laptops

Except it's a 200% improvement

do that whole thing once more = 100% more
do it twice more = 200% more
do it 3 times more = 300% more

or is it???

thrice as many times

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/100276794_548c83c4eb.jpg

Haha no, I can see my error there actually, you're quite right. x-post

Is this time to dig out the original number and say something like "compared to 350 for most laptops"? Maybe that isn't sufficiently punchy, though. Don't ask me, I can barely form a sentence.

You could dispense with the troublesome "times":

"Its chief breakthrough is what Apple claims is an eight-hour battery that can offers 1,000 recharge cycles (three times as many as most laptops)."

But maybe not enough people know what "recharge cycles" means.

(three times more recharges than most laptops)

Can you use recharge as a noun?

"that can offers", rather.

or (three times more recharge cycles than most laptops) then you've defined cycle already, kind of

OR ...

(three times the number of most laptops)

Its chief breakthrough is what Apple claims is an eight-hour battery that can be recharged 1,000 times (a threefold improvement over most laptops).

Ooh - threefold. How could I forget lovely threefold?

*applauds*

Actually I would have said "triple what other laptops can do" but I guess that's a bit conversational?

yeah I don't think you'd use 'do' in this context

triple what other laptops can offer

triple what other laptops' batteries can offer?

"Apple laptop batteries come with three times as many complimentary donuts."

three times the recharge cycle lifespan of most other laptops

three times as often as most other laptops

Flib flabbity fram jamma!

xpost That makes it sound like you need to charge it more often.

well, "can be charged three times as often " as opposed to "needs to be charged three times as often" but yeah see your point there.

How about more than the work of three normal laptops?

Its chief breakthrough is what Apple claims is an eight-hour battery that can be recharged 1,000 times (which would take a thousand monkeys working feverishly at a thousand normal laptops to achieve).

How about just:

"Monkeys!"

"Apple lie about battery life."

Oh god, company names as plural, grrrrr

Next you'll be saying band names are singular.

Blur: is shite.

OK, this is ridiculous, but does the word "pants" (in the UK English sense) always mean men's underwear? This is what I am arguing now. Women don't generally wear pants, do they?