ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

'kinetics was' would be clunky, though.

Yeah, I think that was the right choice.

If x and y are being considered separately then I don't see how it could be anything other than right.

The x and y shouldn't matter.

What about, "The kinetics of peanut butter and jelly [was/were] the focus of a recent research paper"?

were

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.

Oh good, I'm awake at 5am discussing the kinetics of peanut butter and jelly.

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.

What I'm saying is the 'of x and y' part of the sentence has no influence on the 'was/were' part.

It does if you treat the kinetics of a single thing as singular.

Oh I see.

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

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?

I thought if you were American, you'd say "Its hit songs"...

(anyway, I'd say "included")

"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.

Yeah, 'its' for a collective noun is not exclusively American.

I don't want to live in a world in which Gorillaz is a collective noun.

Ah, yes, it gets dodgy when the band name is a plural. I get headaches from this.

(this? that?)

Correct usage would be "Gorillaz' hit songz"

ARGH THE S POS I HATE THE S POS

unless it's 'the Gorillaz' hit songs'

i luv gorilla'z their my favorite

i brought there cd and bought it home

I saw an X-apostrophe the other day in a newspaper and it kind of threw me.

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?

Personally, I don't like the sound of any of these

Also why do some people say "a blog" when they mean "a post on a blog"

God, I hate this so much.

I know! But I have to grapple with this head on and resolve it

when you write a BLOG ENTRY or BLOG POST, you blog ABOUT something

ok

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"

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.

I agree

but i mean also fuck shakespeare dude is so olddd

Also why do some people say "a blog" when they mean "a post on a blog"

Partly because certain organisations, such as MY OWN and the BBC encourage them to do so.

bummer

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."

^^ wording is the least of the problems there

Ha.

(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.

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"!

It clearly should have been called "Not Quite New TOO (For Men)"

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.

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.

haha