Both are correct. It's similar to:
"John doesn't watch TV. Nor do I." "John doesn't watch TV. Neither do I."
― Zelda Zonk, Thursday, 29 May 2008 10:04 (fifteen years ago) link
I just told a recruitment agent that I could "obtain references for either of those posts". Was that wrong? (Grammatically, I mean. I *can* obtain the references.)
― Zoe Espera, Thursday, 29 May 2008 12:15 (fifteen years ago) link
It'll do.
― suzy, Thursday, 29 May 2008 12:18 (fifteen years ago) link
bit of a science-writing query here, and i've seen contradictory answers from various sources:
"the kinetics of [x and y] was determined by..."
vs
"the kinetics of [x and y] were determined by..."
― braveclub, Monday, 2 June 2008 16:12 (fifteen years ago) link
kinetics were
― Autumn Almanac, Monday, 2 June 2008 18:26 (fifteen years ago) link
thanks, yeah that's what i went with in the end, the OED has it as a plural in that sense only
― braveclub, Monday, 2 June 2008 18:31 (fifteen years ago) link
Does [x and y] represent a combination of X and Y, or are they being considered separately (i.e., "the kinetics of X and the kinetics of Y")? (My science background is fairly limited, so forgive me if the answer to this question is obvious.)
― jaymc, Monday, 2 June 2008 18:32 (fifteen years ago) link
x and y are being considered separately.
i think this is the relevant definition: 2b (usually treated as pl.) Those aspects of a process that relate to its rate; the details of the way a reaction occurs, esp. as regards its rate.
― braveclub, Monday, 2 June 2008 18:41 (fifteen years ago) link
'kinetics was' would be clunky, though.
― Autumn Almanac, Monday, 2 June 2008 18:47 (fifteen years ago) link
Yeah, I think that was the right choice.
― jaymc, Monday, 2 June 2008 18:48 (fifteen years ago) link
If x and y are being considered separately then I don't see how it could be anything other than right.
― Alba, Monday, 2 June 2008 18:49 (fifteen years ago) link
The x and y shouldn't matter.
― Autumn Almanac, Monday, 2 June 2008 18:57 (fifteen years ago) link
What about, "The kinetics of peanut butter and jelly [was/were] the focus of a recent research paper"?
― jaymc, Monday, 2 June 2008 19:03 (fifteen years ago) link
were
― Autumn Almanac, Monday, 2 June 2008 19:04 (fifteen years ago) link
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 (fifteen years ago) link
Oh good, I'm awake at 5am discussing the kinetics of peanut butter and jelly.
― Autumn Almanac, Monday, 2 June 2008 19:06 (fifteen years ago) link
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 āsā, 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 (fifteen years ago) link
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 (fifteen years ago) link
It does if you treat the kinetics of a single thing as singular.
― Alba, Monday, 2 June 2008 19:14 (fifteen years ago) link
Oh I see.
― Autumn Almanac, Monday, 2 June 2008 19:15 (fifteen years ago) link
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 (fifteen years ago) link
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 (fifteen years ago) link
I thought if you were American, you'd say "Its hit songs"...
― Alba, Friday, 13 June 2008 20:45 (fifteen years ago) link
(anyway, I'd say "included")
― Alba, Friday, 13 June 2008 20:46 (fifteen years ago) link
"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 (fifteen years ago) link
Yeah, 'its' for a collective noun is not exclusively American.
― Autumn Almanac, Saturday, 14 June 2008 00:02 (fifteen years ago) link
I don't want to live in a world in which Gorillaz is a collective noun.
― Alba, Saturday, 14 June 2008 00:10 (fifteen years ago) link
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 (fifteen years ago) link
(this? that?)
Correct usage would be "Gorillaz' hit songz"
― Hurting 2, Saturday, 14 June 2008 00:20 (fifteen years ago) link
ARGH THE S POS I HATE THE S POS
― Autumn Almanac, Saturday, 14 June 2008 00:20 (fifteen years ago) link
unless it's 'the Gorillaz' hit songs'
i luv gorilla'z their my favorite
― Hurting 2, Saturday, 14 June 2008 00:23 (fifteen years ago) link
i brought there cd and bought it home
― Autumn Almanac, Saturday, 14 June 2008 00:25 (fifteen years ago) link
I saw an X-apostrophe the other day in a newspaper and it kind of threw me.
― jaymc, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 19:42 (fifteen years ago) link
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 (fifteen years ago) link
Personally, I don't like the sound of any of these
― admrl, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 19:45 (fifteen years ago) link
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 (fifteen years ago) link
I know! But I have to grapple with this head on and resolve it
― admrl, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 19:46 (fifteen years ago) link
when you write a BLOG ENTRY or BLOG POST, you blog ABOUT something
― 69, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 19:46 (fifteen years ago) link
ok
― admrl, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 19:47 (fifteen years ago) link
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 (fifteen years ago) link
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 (fifteen years ago) link
I agree
― admrl, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 19:49 (fifteen years ago) link
but i mean also fuck shakespeare dude is so olddd
― 69, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 19:49 (fifteen years ago) link
Partly because certain organisations, such as MY OWN and the BBC encourage them to do so.
― Alba, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 20:43 (fifteen years ago) link
bummer
― 69, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 20:45 (fifteen years ago) link
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 (fifteen years ago) link
^^ wording is the least of the problems there
― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 20:54 (fifteen years ago) link