Discussion:
Singular/plural mix
(too old to reply)
Lothar Frings
2017-01-16 09:37:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I asked some time ago about - to me -
strange plural forms like "The police
have arrested...". Now in his comic,
it reads "The Mafia always gets their man"
(spoken by an intimidated anit-Mafia witness).

<http://www.gocomics.com/inspector-dangers-crime-quiz/2017/01/16?ct=v&cti=1488352>

Is "gets" correct here? Can you mix singular and plural
this way?
Harrison Hill
2017-01-16 09:58:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lothar Frings
I asked some time ago about - to me -
strange plural forms like "The police
have arrested...". Now in his comic,
it reads "The Mafia always gets their man"
(spoken by an intimidated anit-Mafia witness).
<http://www.gocomics.com/inspector-dangers-crime-quiz/2017/01/16?ct=v&cti=1488352>
Is "gets" correct here? Can you mix singular and plural
this way?
Why is "the Mafia" singular? Because is one organisation.
Why is it plural? Because it consists of many people.

Likewise the police, the BBC, the Football Association,
your government; every group or organisation can sit
comfortably in either camp.
Lothar Frings
2017-01-16 10:07:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lothar Frings
I asked some time ago about - to me -
strange plural forms like "The police
have arrested...". Now in his comic,
it reads "The Mafia always gets their man"
(spoken by an intimidated anit-Mafia witness).
<http://www.gocomics.com/inspector-dangers-crime-quiz/2017/01/16?ct=v&cti=1488352>
Is "gets" correct here? Can you mix singular and plural
this way?
Why is "the Mafia" singular? Because is one organisation.
Why is it plural? Because it consists of many people.
Likewise the police, the BBC, the Football Association,
your government; every group or organisation can sit
comfortably in either camp.
So I take it you could use both singular and plural?
But my question is whether it is correct to
mix both forms.
Horace LaBadie
2017-01-16 13:13:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lothar Frings
I asked some time ago about - to me -
strange plural forms like "The police
have arrested...". Now in his comic,
it reads "The Mafia always gets their man"
(spoken by an intimidated anit-Mafia witness).
<http://www.gocomics.com/inspector-dangers-crime-quiz/2017/01/16?ct=v&cti=
1488352>
Is "gets" correct here? Can you mix singular and plural
this way?
Why is "the Mafia" singular? Because is one organisation.
Why is it plural? Because it consists of many people.
Likewise the police, the BBC, the Football Association,
your government; every group or organisation can sit
comfortably in either camp.
So I take it you could use both singular and plural?
But my question is whether it is correct to
mix both forms.
That's the singular they again. If you decide that Mafia is singular,
then their will be, too.

Presumably, that isn't a gas fireplace, because that would need a
chimney to vent it and bring in fresh air.
Lothar Frings
2017-01-16 15:42:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Horace LaBadie
Presumably, that isn't a gas fireplace, because that would need a
chimney to vent it and bring in fresh air.
Yes, "Inspector Danger" is nice but not always consistent.
One has to take into account that the puzzle must be
solvable from the comic strip, so "no chimney,
no sweeping" must suffice.
Snidely
2017-01-17 07:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Horace LaBadie pounded on thar keyboard to tell us
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lothar Frings
I asked some time ago about - to me -
strange plural forms like "The police
have arrested...". Now in his comic,
it reads "The Mafia always gets their man"
(spoken by an intimidated anit-Mafia witness).
<http://www.gocomics.com/inspector-dangers-crime-quiz/2017/01/16?ct=v&cti=
1488352>
Is "gets" correct here? Can you mix singular and plural
this way?
Why is "the Mafia" singular? Because is one organisation.
Why is it plural? Because it consists of many people.
Likewise the police, the BBC, the Football Association,
your government; every group or organisation can sit
comfortably in either camp.
So I take it you could use both singular and plural?
But my question is whether it is correct to
mix both forms.
That's the singular they again. If you decide that Mafia is singular,
then their will be, too.
Presumably, that isn't a gas fireplace, because that would need a
chimney to vent it and bring in fresh air.
You can do it with a small enough chimney not to show, although I
expect most building codes would expect the vent to be higher than the
roof at the point of exit. A gas log usually doesn't burn as hot as a
wood fire, and gas heaters generally have smaller vents than Franklin
stove.

/dps "but yeah, they did seem to oversimplify"
--
"I'm glad unicorns don't ever need upgrades."
"We are as up as it is possible to get graded!"
_Phoebe and Her Unicorn_, 2016.05.15
Mark Brader
2017-01-17 10:58:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Horace LaBadie
Presumably, that isn't a gas fireplace, because that would need a
chimney to vent it and bring in fresh air.
Not necessarily in the roof. The air intake and exhaust vent for
our gas furnace are in the wall.

I actually assumed it was a TV or digital photo display screen (and
that the guy was sweating for emotional reasons).
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Most people are other people. Their thoughts
***@vex.net | are someone else's opinions..." --Oscar Wilde

My text in this article is in the public domain.
J. J. Lodder
2017-01-19 10:28:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lothar Frings
I asked some time ago about - to me -
strange plural forms like "The police
have arrested...". Now in his comic,
it reads "The Mafia always gets their man"
(spoken by an intimidated anit-Mafia witness).
<http://www.gocomics.com/inspector-dangers-crime-quiz/2017/01/16?ct=v&ct
i=
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lothar Frings
1488352>
Is "gets" correct here? Can you mix singular and plural
this way?
Why is "the Mafia" singular? Because is one organisation.
Why is it plural? Because it consists of many people.
Likewise the police, the BBC, the Football Association,
your government; every group or organisation can sit
comfortably in either camp.
So I take it you could use both singular and plural?
But my question is whether it is correct to
mix both forms.
That's the singular they again. If you decide that Mafia is singular,
then their will be, too.
Presumably, that isn't a gas fireplace, because that would need a
chimney to vent it and bring in fresh air.
Small decorative ones (up to 2 kW) exist that can do without.
They use a catalytic converter to make sure
that all that comes out is CO2 and H2O.
In addition they have a 'lack of input air' detection,
and shut of in case that.
There are also ethanol burning ones,

Jan
Peter Young
2017-01-16 17:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lothar Frings
I asked some time ago about - to me -
strange plural forms like "The police
have arrested...". Now in his comic,
it reads "The Mafia always gets their man"
(spoken by an intimidated anit-Mafia witness).
<http://www.gocomics.com/inspector-dangers-crime-quiz/2017/01/16?ct=v&
cti=1488352>
Is "gets" correct here? Can you mix singular and plural
this way?
Why is "the Mafia" singular? Because is one organisation.
Why is it plural? Because it consists of many people.
Likewise the police, the BBC, the Football Association,
your government; every group or organisation can sit
comfortably in either camp.
And till the nineteenth century, BrE made "police" a singular noun:
"the police is ...".

Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Ir)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Harrison Hill
2017-01-16 20:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Young
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Lothar Frings
I asked some time ago about - to me -
strange plural forms like "The police
have arrested...". Now in his comic,
it reads "The Mafia always gets their man"
(spoken by an intimidated anit-Mafia witness).
<http://www.gocomics.com/inspector-dangers-crime-quiz/2017/01/16?ct=v&
cti=1488352>
Is "gets" correct here? Can you mix singular and plural
this way?
Why is "the Mafia" singular? Because is one organisation.
Why is it plural? Because it consists of many people.
Likewise the police, the BBC, the Football Association,
your government; every group or organisation can sit
comfortably in either camp.
"the police is ...".
The police weren't formed until the nineteenth century, so that
is a curious way of putting it. If you mean the general rule
that collections are singular, that is a superstition debunked by
Fowler. He goes back to Carlisle rewriting the second edition of
one of his books in order to conform to this non-existent "rule".

"The police is in attendance"? Okay.
"The police is to be asked to provide individual records"?
"The police is to be measured up for new footware"?
Peter Moylan
2017-01-17 07:52:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Young
"the police is ...".
As it still is in French. And, I think, a few other languages.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Mark Brader
2017-01-16 10:02:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Now in this comic,
it reads "The Mafia always gets their man"
(spoken by an intimidated anti-Mafia witness).
<http://www.gocomics.com/inspector-dangers-crime-quiz/2017/01/16?ct=v&cti=1488352>
Is "gets" correct here? Can you mix singular and plural
this way?
There may be some people who don't accept it, but I certainly can.
There's a common informal usage with organizations where they're
construed as singular for verb agreement, but take the pronoun "they"
(which, as usual, is then construed as plural). For example:

"Amtrak is mostly just a passenger-train operator, but they own
the tracks in the Northeast Corridor."

"NBC is the network that uses the peacock logo. They started
broadcasting in color around 1960."

"The league has no premises of their own. They play their games in
various pubs around the city."

"The Mafia is a criminal organization. They control the labor
unions in this town."

The comic-strip example does look a bit odd with the singular verb
and the plural pronoun right next to each other, but if they had been
separated, as in my examples, I would have found it completely ordinary.


In more formal writing, as in business documents, this is not done.
A report about Amtrak would say that *it* owns the tracks in the NEC.
--
Mark Brader | "Every year this part of our job gets easier.
Toronto | Between Facebook, Instagram, and Flickr, people are
***@vex.net | surveilling *themselves*." --Phil Coulson (Jeffrey Bell)

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Mark Brader
2017-01-16 10:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Lothar Frings
Is "gets" correct here? Can you mix singular and plural
this way?
There's a common informal usage with organizations where they're
construed as singular for verb agreement, but take the pronoun "they"
(which, as usual, is then construed as plural).
Or for an example that wasn't just invented by me, see Cheryl Perkins's
posting just now in the "cue-pawn" thread:

| The school board, or district as they now call it here, governs
| the school... but they aren't "government" any more than the people
| who run the health care system...

Thanks, Cheryl.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Not looking like Pascal is not
***@vex.net a language deficiency!" -- Doug Gwyn

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Richard Tobin
2017-01-16 22:58:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lothar Frings
it reads "The Mafia always gets their man"
(spoken by an intimidated anit-Mafia witness).
<http://www.gocomics.com/inspector-dangers-crime-quiz/2017/01/16?ct=v&cti=1488352>
Is "gets" correct here? Can you mix singular and plural
this way?
It's a bit odd, but is probably a result of it referring to the saying
that the Mounties always get their man. Changing "their" to "its"
would be too different.

-- Richard
Lothar Frings
2017-01-17 08:23:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Lothar Frings
it reads "The Mafia always gets their man"
(spoken by an intimidated anit-Mafia witness).
<http://www.gocomics.com/inspector-dangers-crime-quiz/2017/01/16?ct=v&cti=1488352>
Is "gets" correct here? Can you mix singular and plural
this way?
It's a bit odd, but is probably a result of it referring to the saying
that the Mounties always get their man. Changing "their" to "its"
would be too different.
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-01-17 12:47:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:23:55 -0800 (PST), Lothar Frings
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Lothar Frings
it reads "The Mafia always gets their man"
(spoken by an intimidated anit-Mafia witness).
<http://www.gocomics.com/inspector-dangers-crime-quiz/2017/01/16?ct=v&cti=1488352>
Is "gets" correct here? Can you mix singular and plural
this way?
It's a bit odd, but is probably a result of it referring to the saying
that the Mounties always get their man. Changing "their" to "its"
would be too different.
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated as
singular.

http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/

United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say “The United States is in the Western Hemisphere,”
not “The United States are in the Western Hemisphere.” This has been
the case for over a century. Think of United States as the name of a
country like any other.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2017-01-17 15:28:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated as
singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/
United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say “The United States is in the Western Hemisphere,”
not “The United States are in the Western Hemisphere.” This has been
the case for over a century. Think of United States as the name of a
country like any other.
It has been said that before the Civil War, "the United States" was plural
and after the Civil War it was singular. That may be a broad principle
but hasn't always been followed.
the Omrud
2017-01-18 19:29:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated as
singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/
United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say “The United States is in the Western Hemisphere,”
not “The United States are in the Western Hemisphere.” This has been
the case for over a century. Think of United States as the name of a
country like any other.
It has been said that before the Civil War, "the United States" was plural
and after the Civil War it was singular. That may be a broad principle
but hasn't always been followed.
This was touched on in Ken Burn's magnificent series "The Civil War".
The main talking-head historian, Shelby Foote, considered it to be a
straightforward fact that the usage changed after the war.
--
David
Peter T. Daniels
2017-01-18 20:11:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by the Omrud
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated as
singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/
United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say “The United States is in the Western Hemisphere,”
not “The United States are in the Western Hemisphere.” This has been
the case for over a century. Think of United States as the name of a
country like any other.
It has been said that before the Civil War, "the United States" was plural
and after the Civil War it was singular. That may be a broad principle
but hasn't always been followed.
This was touched on in Ken Burn's magnificent series "The Civil War".
The main talking-head historian, Shelby Foote, considered it to be a
straightforward fact that the usage changed after the war.
Not everything Shelby Foote told Ken Burns was entirely accurate.

I'm pretty sure Jefferson used the plural -- after all, when he got started,
they _were_ a bunch of different entities -- and Lincoln strove for the
singular. The plural seems odd, especially when I hear it from a national
politician.
bill van
2017-01-18 21:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by the Omrud
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated as
singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/
United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say “The United States is in the Western Hemisphere,”
not “The United States are in the Western Hemisphere.” This has been
the case for over a century. Think of United States as the name of a
country like any other.
It has been said that before the Civil War, "the United States" was plural
and after the Civil War it was singular. That may be a broad principle
but hasn't always been followed.
This was touched on in Ken Burn's magnificent series "The Civil War".
The main talking-head historian, Shelby Foote, considered it to be a
straightforward fact that the usage changed after the war.
It seems to me that the phrase "these United States" is still in use and
clearly casts the U.S. in terms of the parts rather than the whole. I
think it might be a matter of whether the speaker wants to emphasize the
united nation, or its constituent parts.
--
bill
Lothar Frings
2017-01-17 21:20:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:23:55 -0800 (PST), Lothar Frings
Post by Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated as
singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/
United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say “The United States is in the Western Hemisphere,”
not “The United States are in the Western Hemisphere.” This has been
the case for over a century. Think of United States as the name of a
country like any other.
Really... in German "Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika"
has always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
s***@gmail.com
2017-01-18 00:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:23:55 -0800 (PST), Lothar Frings
Post by Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated as
singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/
United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say “The United States is in the Western Hemisphere,”
not “The United States are in the Western Hemisphere.” This has been
the case for over a century. Think of United States as the name of a
country like any other.
Really... in German "Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika"
has always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
Only since 1959.

/dps
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-01-18 18:40:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:23:55 -0800 (PST), Lothar Frings
Post by Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated as
singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/
United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say “The United States is in the Western Hemisphere,”
not “The United States are in the Western Hemisphere.” This has been
the case for over a century. Think of United States as the name of a
country like any other.>> Really... in German "Die Vereinigten Staaten
von Amerika"
has always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
Only since 1959.
Yes, but they've never been fewer than 13 -- plural all the way.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2017-01-18 00:50:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:23:55 -0800 (PST), Lothar Frings
Post by Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated as
singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/
United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say “The United States is in the Western Hemisphere,”
not “The United States are in the Western Hemisphere.” This has been
the case for over a century. Think of United States as the name of a
country like any other.
Really... in German "Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika"
has always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
They are one nation. Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition
that all men are created equal.
Lothar Frings
2017-01-18 07:46:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:23:55 -0800 (PST), Lothar Frings
Post by Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated as
singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/
United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say “The United States is in the Western Hemisphere,”
not “The United States are in the Western Hemisphere.” This has been
the case for over a century. Think of United States as the name of a
country like any other.
Really... in German "Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika"
has always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
They are one nation. Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition
that all men are created equal.
Ok, but sarcasm doesn't affect grammar.
Snidely
2017-01-18 08:00:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:23:55 -0800 (PST), Lothar Frings
Post by Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated as
singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/
United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say “The United States is in the Western Hemisphere,”
not “The United States are in the Western Hemisphere.” This has been
the case for over a century. Think of United States as the name of a
country like any other.
Really... in German "Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika"
has always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
They are one nation. Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition
that all men are created equal.
Ok, but sarcasm doesn't affect grammar.
Does optimism or idealism?

(One might be sarcastic now. Abe wasn't sarcastic then.)

/dps
--
"That's a good sort of hectic, innit?"

" Very much so, and I'd recommend the haggis wontons."
-njm
Lothar Frings
2017-01-18 08:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:23:55 -0800 (PST), Lothar Frings
Post by Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated as
singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/
United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say “The United States is in the Western Hemisphere,”
not “The United States are in the Western Hemisphere.” This has been
the case for over a century. Think of United States as the name of a
country like any other.
Really... in German "Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika"
has always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
They are one nation. Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition
that all men are created equal.
Ok, but sarcasm doesn't affect grammar.
Does optimism or idealism?
(One might be sarcastic now. Abe wasn't sarcastic then.)
Ok, but if he really believed that he was someting much worse.
But Abe is an American Idol, so let's call
his state of mind idealistic. And let's say
a "borrowed" phrase is not stolen.
CDB
2017-01-18 13:16:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated
as singular. http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/ United
States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say “The United States is in the Western
Hemisphere,” not “The United States are in the Western
Hemisphere.” This has been the case for over a century. Think
of United States as the name of a country like any other.
Really... in German "Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika" has
always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
They are one nation. Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal.
Ok, but sarcasm doesn't affect grammar.
;)

The definite article doesn't distinguish singular and plural, and the US
is one country, so the transition was made; but it's "these United
States are ...", not "this US is" or "these US is".
Peter T. Daniels
2017-01-18 16:04:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by CDB
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated
as singular. http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/ United
States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say “The United States is in the Western
Hemisphere,” not “The United States are in the Western
Hemisphere.” This has been the case for over a century. Think
of United States as the name of a country like any other.
Really... in German "Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika" has
always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
They are one nation. Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal.
Ok, but sarcasm doesn't affect grammar.
;)
The definite article doesn't distinguish singular and plural, and the US
is one country, so the transition was made; but it's "these United
States are ...", not "this US is" or "these US is".
"This US" doesn't make sense, because no other country that has such a phrase
in its name is referred to that way -- we don't say "The United States of
Mexico" or "The United States of Brazil" (are there others? maybe Malaysia,
because they adapted the American flag?).
CDB
2017-01-18 18:35:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually
treated as singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/ United States is
a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for example,
we say “The United States is in the Western Hemisphere,”
not “The United States are in the Western Hemisphere.” This
has been the case for over a century. Think of United
States as the name of a country like any other.
Really... in German "Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika"
has always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
They are one nation. Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to
the proposition that all men are created equal.
Ok, but sarcasm doesn't affect grammar.
;)
The definite article doesn't distinguish singular and plural, and
the US is one country, so the transition was made; but it's "these
United States are ...", not "this US is" or "these US is".
"This US" doesn't make sense, because no other country that has such
a phrase in its name is referred to that way -- we don't say "The
United States of Mexico" or "The United States of Brazil" (are there
others? maybe Malaysia, because they adapted the American flag?).
I chose "this/these" because it indicates the number of its referent.
It's not usual, but you do hear the phrase "these United States", always
with a plural verb. I think the switch from plural to the customary
singular was made possible by the ambiguity of "the".
Jerry Friedman
2017-01-20 22:35:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by CDB
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated
as singular. http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/ United
States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say “The United States is in the Western
Hemisphere,” not “The United States are in the Western
Hemisphere.” This has been the case for over a century. Think
of United States as the name of a country like any other.
Really... in German "Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika" has
always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
They are one nation. Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal.
Ok, but sarcasm doesn't affect grammar.
;)
The definite article doesn't distinguish singular and plural, and the US
is one country, so the transition was made; but it's "these United
States are ...", not "this US is" or "these US is".
Not that I would ever say "these United States".

It's unusual to put "this" (or "these") before the name of any
other country, unless it's a scepter'd isle and a blessed plot.
--
Jerry Friedman
RH Draney
2017-01-21 01:35:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Not that I would ever say "these United States".
It's unusual to put "this" (or "these") before the name of any
other country, unless it's a scepter'd isle and a blessed plot.
These Maldives, these Philippines, these United Arab Emirates...seems to
work better when the actual name of the country is in fact plural...not
as sure about "these Trinidad and Tobago"....r
CDB
2017-01-21 13:19:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by CDB
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually
treated as singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/ United States is
a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for example,
we say “The United States is in the Western Hemisphere,”
not “The United States are in the Western Hemisphere.” This
has been the case for over a century. Think of United
States as the name of a country like any other.
Really... in German "Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika"
has always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
They are one nation. Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to
the proposition that all men are created equal.
Ok, but sarcasm doesn't affect grammar.
;)
The definite article doesn't distinguish singular and plural, and
the US is one country, so the transition was made; but it's "these
United States are ...", not "this US is" or "these US is".
Not that I would ever say "these United States".
It's unusual to put "this" (or "these") before the name of any other
country, unless it's a scepter'd isle and a blessed plot.
Not to be left out, Canadian politicians can be found at GooBoo talking
about "this Dominion", most of them a century ago or more.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-01-21 15:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by CDB
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by CDB
The definite article doesn't distinguish singular and plural, and
the US is one country, so the transition was made; but it's "these
United States are ...", not "this US is" or "these US is".
Not that I would ever say "these United States".
hear here!
Post by CDB
Post by Jerry Friedman
It's unusual to put "this" (or "these") before the name of any other
country, unless it's a scepter'd isle and a blessed plot.
Not to be left out, Canadian politicians can be found at GooBoo talking
about "this Dominion", most of them a century ago or more.
Which makes sense, because "Dominion" was the status of a number of quasi-
independent countries (nations?) within the British Empire and then the
British Commonwealth. Did the status "Dominion" exist before some entities
of British North America (still a category in philately) got together in 1867?

Are there still "Dominions" now that it's simply the Commonwealth and countries
(nations?) with no historic connection with the British Empire are admitted? Do
those new admittances have to admit the sort of fealty to the British Crown
still required of Canada?
Janet
2017-01-21 16:27:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by CDB
The definite article doesn't distinguish singular and plural, and
the US is one country, so the transition was made; but it's "these
United States are ...", not "this US is" or "these US is".
Not that I would ever say "these United States".
hear here!
Post by CDB
Post by Jerry Friedman
It's unusual to put "this" (or "these") before the name of any other
country, unless it's a scepter'd isle and a blessed plot.
Not to be left out, Canadian politicians can be found at GooBoo talking
about "this Dominion", most of them a century ago or more.
Which makes sense, because "Dominion" was the status of a number of quasi-
independent countries (nations?) within the British Empire and then the
British Commonwealth. Did the status "Dominion" exist before some entities
of British North America (still a category in philately) got together in 1867?
Are there still "Dominions" now that it's simply the Commonwealth and countries
(nations?) with no historic connection with the British Empire are admitted? Do
those new admittances have to admit the sort of fealty to the British Crown
still required of Canada?
Which "new admittances with no historic connection with the British
Empire" are you talking about?

Janet
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-01-21 18:03:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by CDB
The definite article doesn't distinguish singular and plural, and
the US is one country, so the transition was made; but it's "these
United States are ...", not "this US is" or "these US is".
Not that I would ever say "these United States".
hear here!
Post by CDB
Post by Jerry Friedman
It's unusual to put "this" (or "these") before the name of any other
country, unless it's a scepter'd isle and a blessed plot.
Not to be left out, Canadian politicians can be found at GooBoo talking
about "this Dominion", most of them a century ago or more.
Which makes sense, because "Dominion" was the status of a number of quasi-
independent countries (nations?) within the British Empire and then the
British Commonwealth. Did the status "Dominion" exist before some entities
of British North America (still a category in philately) got together
in 1867?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Are there still "Dominions" now that it's simply the Commonwealth and countries
(nations?) with no historic connection with the British Empire are admitted? Do
those new admittances have to admit the sort of fealty to the British Crown
still required of Canada?
Which "new admittances with no historic connection with the British
Empire" are you talking about?
Janet
There are two member countires of the Commonwealth which had previous
links with the United Kingdom: Mozambique and Rwanda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations#Current_members

Mozambique 13 November 1995
Gained independence from Portugal on 26 June 1975. The first country
to be admitted to the Commonwealth without any former colonial or
constitutional links with the United Kingdom.

Rwanda 29 November 2009[
Gained independence from Belgium on 1 July 1962. The second country
(after Mozambique) to be admitted to the Commonwealth without any
former colonial or constitutional links with the United Kingdom.
Unlike Mozambique, has adopted English as an official language since
joining.

There is a cluster of Commonwealth countries in southern and
south-eastern Africa. Mozambique was surrounded by Commonwealth
countries and decided to join them. I assume that Rwanda's decision was
for similar reasons.

All members of the Commonwealth are equal. Joining it is a matter of
connecting with all of the member countries.

One of Mozambique's neighbours is Zimbabwe which used to be a member,
but was suspended and then left.

Map:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Commonwealth_of_Nations.svg

The Commonwealth of Nations was previously the British Commonwealth
(from 1921) but "British" was officially removed from the name in 1949.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-01-21 23:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:03:29 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
There are two member countires of the Commonwealth which had previous
links with the United Kingdom: Mozambique and Rwanda.
OMG!

...which had *no* previous links with the United Kingdom...
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Janet
2017-01-22 00:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:03:29 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
There are two member countires of the Commonwealth which had previous
links with the United Kingdom: Mozambique and Rwanda.
OMG!
...which had *no* previous links with the United Kingdom...
Don't worry, the quoted material made clear what you'd meant to write

Janet
Peter T. Daniels
2017-01-22 04:07:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:03:29 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
There are two member countires of the Commonwealth which had previous
links with the United Kingdom: Mozambique and Rwanda.
OMG!
...which had *no* previous links with the United Kingdom...
Don't worry, the quoted material made clear what you'd meant to write
So now can we get back to the question I asked before Janet derailed it?
Janet
2017-01-21 23:50:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by CDB
The definite article doesn't distinguish singular and plural, and
the US is one country, so the transition was made; but it's "these
United States are ...", not "this US is" or "these US is".
Not that I would ever say "these United States".
hear here!
Post by CDB
Post by Jerry Friedman
It's unusual to put "this" (or "these") before the name of any other
country, unless it's a scepter'd isle and a blessed plot.
Not to be left out, Canadian politicians can be found at GooBoo talking
about "this Dominion", most of them a century ago or more.
Which makes sense, because "Dominion" was the status of a number of quasi-
independent countries (nations?) within the British Empire and then the
British Commonwealth. Did the status "Dominion" exist before some entities
of British North America (still a category in philately) got together
in 1867?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Are there still "Dominions" now that it's simply the Commonwealth and countries
(nations?) with no historic connection with the British Empire are admitted? Do
those new admittances have to admit the sort of fealty to the British Crown
still required of Canada?
Which "new admittances with no historic connection with the British
Empire" are you talking about?
Janet
There are two member countires of the Commonwealth which had previous
links with the United Kingdom: Mozambique and Rwanda.
Thanks, interesting.

Janet.
CDB
2017-01-22 06:02:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by CDB
The definite article doesn't distinguish singular and plural,
and the US is one country, so the transition was made; but it's
"these United States are ...", not "this US is" or "these US
is".
Not that I would ever say "these United States".
hear here!
Post by CDB
Post by Jerry Friedman
It's unusual to put "this" (or "these") before the name of any
other country, unless it's a scepter'd isle and a blessed plot.
Not to be left out, Canadian politicians can be found at GooBoo
talking about "this Dominion", most of them a century ago or more.
Which makes sense, because "Dominion" was the status of a number of
quasi- independent countries (nations?) within the British Empire and
then the British Commonwealth. Did the status "Dominion" exist before
some entities of British North America (still a category in
philately) got together in 1867?
As I understand it, the word began with us. The story as I heard it
mentioned Kipling, but there's no word of him here (there is of "A mari
usque ad mare" though):

'Dominion refers primarily to Dominion of Canada (Constitution Act,
1867, preamble and section 3). The Fathers of Confederation wanted to
call "the new nation" the Kingdom of Canada. The British Government
feared this would offend the Americans, whom, after the stresses of the
American Civil War, it was most anxious not to antagonize. It insisted
on a different title. Sir Leonard Tilley suggested "dominion:" "He shall
have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of
the earth" (Psalm 72:8). The Fathers said it was intended to give
dignity to the federation, and as a tribute to the monarchical
principle. The word came to be applied to the federal government and
Parliament, and under the Constitution Act, 1982, "Dominion" remains
Canada's official title."

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/dominion/
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Are there still "Dominions" now that it's simply the Commonwealth and
countries (nations?) with no historic connection with the British
Empire are admitted? Do those new admittances have to admit the sort
of fealty to the British Crown still required of Canada?
Yes, but it's silly to think of that in terms of personal allegiance.
The monarch is a human sacrifice, for all the cosseting, a person who
largely gives up an individual life to become a national symbol. What
those citizens do is like pledging allegiance to a flag, as were the
oaths I took as a civil servant.

The real monarch, the person, is of course a Brit. The symbolic monarch
is infinitely divisible, and the one they pledge to is the Canadian bit.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-01-22 12:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by CDB
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by CDB
The definite article doesn't distinguish singular and plural,
and the US is one country, so the transition was made; but it's
"these United States are ...", not "this US is" or "these US
is".
Not that I would ever say "these United States".
hear here!
Post by CDB
Post by Jerry Friedman
It's unusual to put "this" (or "these") before the name of any
other country, unless it's a scepter'd isle and a blessed plot.
Not to be left out, Canadian politicians can be found at GooBoo
talking about "this Dominion", most of them a century ago or more.
Which makes sense, because "Dominion" was the status of a number of
quasi- independent countries (nations?) within the British Empire and
then the British Commonwealth. Did the status "Dominion" exist before
some entities of British North America (still a category in
philately) got together in 1867?
As I understand it, the word began with us. The story as I heard it
mentioned Kipling, but there's no word of him here (there is of "A mari
'Dominion refers primarily to Dominion of Canada (Constitution Act,
1867, preamble and section 3). The Fathers of Confederation wanted to
call "the new nation" the Kingdom of Canada. The British Government
feared this would offend the Americans, whom, after the stresses of the
American Civil War, it was most anxious not to antagonize. It insisted
on a different title. Sir Leonard Tilley suggested "dominion:" "He shall
have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of
the earth" (Psalm 72:8). The Fathers said it was intended to give
dignity to the federation, and as a tribute to the monarchical
principle. The word came to be applied to the federal government and
Parliament, and under the Constitution Act, 1982, "Dominion" remains
Canada's official title."
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/dominion/
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Are there still "Dominions" now that it's simply the Commonwealth and
countries (nations?) with no historic connection with the British
Empire are admitted? Do those new admittances have to admit the sort
of fealty to the British Crown still required of Canada?
Yes, but it's silly to think of that in terms of personal allegiance.
The monarch is a human sacrifice, for all the cosseting, a person who
largely gives up an individual life to become a national symbol. What
those citizens do is like pledging allegiance to a flag, as were the
oaths I took as a civil servant.
The real monarch, the person, is of course a Brit. The symbolic monarch
is infinitely divisible, and the one they pledge to is the Canadian bit.
Further to that, the term used today for the countries which have QE2 as
Queen is "Realms".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations

The Commonwealth dates back to the mid-20th century with the
decolonisation of the British Empire through increased
self-governance of its territories. It was formally constituted by
the London Declaration in 1949, which established the member states
as "free and equal".

The symbol of this free association is Queen Elizabeth II who is the
Head of the Commonwealth. The Queen is also the monarch of 16
members of the Commonwealth, known as Commonwealth realms. The other
Commonwealth members have different heads of state: 31 members are
republics and five are monarchies with a different monarch.

There is a Commonwealth Charter the latest version of which is:
http://thecommonwealth.org/sites/default/files/page/documents/CharteroftheCommonwealth.pdf

CHARTER
of the
COMMONWEALTH

Signed by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Head of the Commonwealth,
Commonwealth Day 2013

WE THE PEOPLE OF
THE COMMONWEALTH:

<snip contents>

Signed by His Excellency Kamalesh Sharma, Commonwealth
Secretary-General, 14 December 2012, on which day
Commonwealth Heads of Government
adopted the Charter of the Commonwealth

Kamalesh Sharma is an Indian diplomat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamalesh_Sharma


Sharma was for a time Chancellor of my local university (my employer for
28 years). That was after I'd retired so I wasn't aware of his
appointment.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2017-01-22 13:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[thanks for the historical info]
Post by CDB
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Are there still "Dominions" now that it's simply the Commonwealth and
countries (nations?) with no historic connection with the British
Empire are admitted? Do those new admittances have to admit the sort
of fealty to the British Crown still required of Canada?
Yes, but it's silly to think of that in terms of personal allegiance.
The monarch is a human sacrifice, for all the cosseting, a person who
largely gives up an individual life to become a national symbol. What
It's not like she chose to do that.

The greatest moment in *The King's Speech*, a movie with many great moments,
was when Bertie, about to be George VI, modeled his ceremonial uniform
for the children for the first time -- and you saw on young Elizabeth's
face the sudden realization that she would some day (though not nearly
so soon as happened) inherit the throne herself.
Post by CDB
those citizens do is like pledging allegiance to a flag, as were the
oaths I took as a civil servant.
The real monarch, the person, is of course a Brit. The symbolic monarch
is infinitely divisible, and the one they pledge to is the Canadian bit.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-04-15 15:43:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:23:55 -0800 (PST), Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.> > > So is "The United States of
America", but it is usually treated as
singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/
United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say “The United States is in the Western Hemisphere,”
not “The United States are in the Western Hemisphere.” This has been
the case for over a century. Think of United States as the name of a
country like any other.> >> > Really... in German "Die Vereinigten
Staaten von Amerika"
has always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
Also in French ("les États-Unis") and Spanish ("los Estados Unidos de
Norteamérica"). When abbreviated as EE UU or USA I think the article is
always "los".
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter T. Daniels
They are one nation. Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the
proposition> that all men are created equal.
Ok, but sarcasm doesn't affect grammar.
--
athel
Quinn C
2017-01-19 22:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:23:55 -0800 (PST), Lothar Frings
Post by Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated as
singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/
United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say “The United States is in the Western Hemisphere,”
not “The United States are in the Western Hemisphere.” This has been
the case for over a century. Think of United States as the name of a
country like any other.
Really... in German "Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika"
has always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
They are one nation. Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition
that all men are created equal.
So why not adopt the name "United Nation of America"?

Or, more explanative, "United Nation That Really Underscores
Equality" or something like that.

"United Nation Furthering Absolute Impartial Rights"

This is fun.
--
If you kill one person, you go to jail; if you kill 20, you go
to an institution for the insane; if you kill 20,000, you get
political asylum. -- Reed Brody, special counsel
for prosecutions at Human Rights Watch
David Kleinecke
2017-01-19 22:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:23:55 -0800 (PST), Lothar Frings
Post by Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated as
singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/
United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say “The United States is in the Western Hemisphere,”
not “The United States are in the Western Hemisphere.” This has been
the case for over a century. Think of United States as the name of a
country like any other.
Really... in German "Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika"
has always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
They are one nation. Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition
that all men are created equal.
So why not adopt the name "United Nation of America"?
Or, more explanative, "United Nation That Really Underscores
Equality" or something like that.
"United Nation Furthering Absolute Impartial Rights"
This is fun.
Trumpland
Janet
2017-01-20 00:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:23:55 -0800 (PST), Lothar Frings
Post by Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated as
singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/
United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say ?The United States is in the Western Hemisphere,?
not ?The United States are in the Western Hemisphere.? This has been
the case for over a century. Think of United States as the name of a
country like any other.
Really... in German "Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika"
has always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
They are one nation. Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition
that all men are created equal.
So why not adopt the name "United Nation of America"?
Or, more explanative, "United Nation That Really Underscores
Equality" or something like that.
"United Nation Furthering Absolute Impartial Rights"
This is fun.
Great United Nation

Janet
Tony Cooper
2017-01-20 01:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:23:55 -0800 (PST), Lothar Frings
Post by Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated as
singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/
United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say ?The United States is in the Western Hemisphere,?
not ?The United States are in the Western Hemisphere.? This has been
the case for over a century. Think of United States as the name of a
country like any other.
Really... in German "Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika"
has always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
They are one nation. Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition
that all men are created equal.
So why not adopt the name "United Nation of America"?
Or, more explanative, "United Nation That Really Underscores
Equality" or something like that.
"United Nation Furthering Absolute Impartial Rights"
This is fun.
Great United Nation
The initialism would be quite appropriate.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2017-01-20 04:17:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Janet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:23:55 -0800 (PST), Lothar Frings
Post by Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated as
singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/
United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say ?The United States is in the Western Hemisphere,?
not ?The United States are in the Western Hemisphere.? This has been
the case for over a century. Think of United States as the name of a
country like any other.
Really... in German "Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika"
has always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
They are one nation. Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition
that all men are created equal.
So why not adopt the name "United Nation of America"?
Or, more explanative, "United Nation That Really Underscores
Equality" or something like that.
"United Nation Furthering Absolute Impartial Rights"
This is fun.
Great United Nation
The initialism would be quite appropriate.
That's actually been the point of the last couple of messages. Did you not notice?
J. J. Lodder
2017-01-22 14:31:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:23:55 -0800 (PST), Lothar Frings
Post by Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated as
singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/
United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say "The United States is in the Western Hemisphere,"
not "The United States are in the Western Hemisphere." This has been
the case for over a century. Think of United States as the name of a
country like any other.
Really... in German "Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika"
has always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
They are one nation. Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition
that all men are created equal.
But you'll never come to terms with 'The Netherlands',
or 'The (Republic of the) Seven United Provinces' before that.

You can find lots of examples for both plural and singular,

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2017-01-22 15:09:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:23:55 -0800 (PST), Lothar Frings
Post by Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated as
singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/
United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say "The United States is in the Western Hemisphere,"
not "The United States are in the Western Hemisphere." This has been
the case for over a century. Think of United States as the name of a
country like any other.
Really... in German "Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika"
has always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
They are one nation. Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition
that all men are created equal.
But you'll never come to terms with 'The Netherlands',
or 'The (Republic of the) Seven United Provinces' before that.
You can find lots of examples for both plural and singular,
Which is why you're probably never going to wipe out "Holland" for the English
name of the country.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-01-22 17:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 07:09:52 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:23:55 -0800 (PST), Lothar Frings
Post by Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated as
singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/
United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say "The United States is in the Western Hemisphere,"
not "The United States are in the Western Hemisphere." This has been
the case for over a century. Think of United States as the name of a
country like any other.
Really... in German "Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika"
has always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
They are one nation. Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition
that all men are created equal.
But you'll never come to terms with 'The Netherlands',
or 'The (Republic of the) Seven United Provinces' before that.
You can find lots of examples for both plural and singular,
Which is why you're probably never going to wipe out "Holland" for the English
name of the country.
Also parts of Holland are in England.

Or, more accurately, Parts of Holland is in England.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parts_of_Holland

The Parts of Holland /'h?l?nd/ is a historical subdivision used in
south-east Lincolnshire, England from 1889 to 1974. The name is
still recognised locally and survives in the district of South
Holland.

Meanings of "Holland" and "Holland":

There is a resemblance in landscape between the Parts of Holland and
Holland, the region in the Netherlands, although their meanings are
different. Holland in England means "land of the hill spurs",
although hill spurs are hardly obvious, while the Dutch Holland is
derived from the Middle Dutch term holtland ("wooded land"). Both
Hollands have landscapes that are low lying and both are known for
tulip growing.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Paul Wolff
2017-01-22 22:09:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 07:09:52 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:23:55 -0800 (PST), Lothar Frings
Post by Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated as
singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/
United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say "The United States is in the Western Hemisphere,"
not "The United States are in the Western Hemisphere." This has been
the case for over a century. Think of United States as the name of a
country like any other.
Really... in German "Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika"
has always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
They are one nation. Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition
that all men are created equal.
But you'll never come to terms with 'The Netherlands',
or 'The (Republic of the) Seven United Provinces' before that.
You can find lots of examples for both plural and singular,
Which is why you're probably never going to wipe out "Holland" for the English
name of the country.
Also parts of Holland are in England.
Or, more accurately, Parts of Holland is in England.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parts_of_Holland
The Parts of Holland /'h?l?nd/ is a historical subdivision used in
south-east Lincolnshire, England from 1889 to 1974. The name is
still recognised locally and survives in the district of South
Holland.
There is a resemblance in landscape between the Parts of Holland and
Holland, the region in the Netherlands, although their meanings are
different. Holland in England means "land of the hill spurs",
although hill spurs are hardly obvious, while the Dutch Holland is
derived from the Middle Dutch term holtland ("wooded land"). Both
Hollands have landscapes that are low lying and both are known for
tulip growing.
And they occupy opposite edges of the former Doggerland plain. I wonder
whether those mesolithics believed in global warming.
--
Paul
Peter Moylan
2017-01-23 06:19:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
There is a resemblance in landscape between the Parts of Holland and
Holland, the region in the Netherlands, although their meanings are
different. Holland in England means "land of the hill spurs",
although hill spurs are hardly obvious, while the Dutch Holland is
derived from the Middle Dutch term holtland ("wooded land"). Both
Hollands have landscapes that are low lying and both are known for
tulip growing.
And they occupy opposite edges of the former Doggerland plain. I wonder
whether those mesolithics believed in global warming.
The warming that drowned Doggerland happened slowly over many
generations, giving people plenty of time to move. (Though some might
have made bad decisions, and ended up stranded on islands without a
boat.) Our present warming is happening at lightning speed compared with
anything that happened in the past. There are people now living on
islands that will probably disappear completely before politicians get
around to noticing the urgency of the problem.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Paul Wolff
2017-01-23 12:42:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
There is a resemblance in landscape between the Parts of Holland and
Holland, the region in the Netherlands, although their meanings are
different. Holland in England means "land of the hill spurs",
although hill spurs are hardly obvious, while the Dutch Holland is
derived from the Middle Dutch term holtland ("wooded land"). Both
Hollands have landscapes that are low lying and both are known for
tulip growing.
And they occupy opposite edges of the former Doggerland plain. I wonder
whether those mesolithics believed in global warming.
The warming that drowned Doggerland happened slowly over many
generations, giving people plenty of time to move.
Towards the end, two major events were very fast - the collapse of a N.
American ice dam dumping the contents of a huge fresh-water lake into
the N. Atlantic around 6200 BC, and the tsunami event from Norway 200
years later, which had a vertical run-up in Shetland of 20-25 metres.
After that inundation, what was left of Doggerland didn't last long,
given the extreme tidal range (estimated at 15 metres) of the tapering
pre-English Channel estuary of the Rhine/Thames/Maas etc. and the North
Sea on the other side of the mud flats, until the sea finally broke
through. The Dover/Calais gap in the chalk existed in the river estuary
before Doggerland was flooded.

[Source: Nicholas Crane, The Making of the British Landscape]
Post by Peter Moylan
(Though some might
have made bad decisions, and ended up stranded on islands without a
boat.)
Their way of life would have been very watery, with the sea providing
plenty of fishy protein. Given the pressures of natural selection, they
probably had some smart cookies amongst their number and knew how to use
adequate boats.
Post by Peter Moylan
Our present warming is happening at lightning speed compared with
anything that happened in the past. There are people now living on
islands that will probably disappear completely before politicians get
around to noticing the urgency of the problem.
I'm still waiting for the next landslide of continental shelf into the
Norwegian trench.
--
Paul
J. J. Lodder
2017-01-23 13:35:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
There is a resemblance in landscape between the Parts of Holland and
Holland, the region in the Netherlands, although their meanings are
different. Holland in England means "land of the hill spurs",
although hill spurs are hardly obvious, while the Dutch Holland is
derived from the Middle Dutch term holtland ("wooded land"). Both
Hollands have landscapes that are low lying and both are known for
tulip growing.
And they occupy opposite edges of the former Doggerland plain. I wonder
whether those mesolithics believed in global warming.
The warming that drowned Doggerland happened slowly over many
generations, giving people plenty of time to move.
Towards the end, two major events were very fast - the collapse of a N.
American ice dam dumping the contents of a huge fresh-water lake into
the N. Atlantic around 6200 BC, and the tsunami event from Norway 200
years later, which had a vertical run-up in Shetland of 20-25 metres.
After that inundation, what was left of Doggerland didn't last long,
given the extreme tidal range (estimated at 15 metres) of the tapering
pre-English Channel estuary of the Rhine/Thames/Maas etc. and the North
Sea on the other side of the mud flats, until the sea finally broke
through. The Dover/Calais gap in the chalk existed in the river estuary
before Doggerland was flooded.
[Source: Nicholas Crane, The Making of the British Landscape]
Post by Peter Moylan
(Though some might
have made bad decisions, and ended up stranded on islands without a
boat.)
Their way of life would have been very watery, with the sea providing
plenty of fishy protein. Given the pressures of natural selection, they
probably had some smart cookies amongst their number and knew how to use
adequate boats.
AFAIK none have been found. (you would expect them in peat deposits)
The Pesse canoe is older, but it is hardly seaworthy.
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Peter Moylan
Our present warming is happening at lightning speed compared with
anything that happened in the past. There are people now living on
islands that will probably disappear completely before politicians get
around to noticing the urgency of the problem.
I'm still waiting for the next landslide of continental shelf into the
Norwegian trench.
AFAIK current expert opinion is
that you will have to wait for the next ice age first,

Jan
Peter Moylan
2017-01-24 07:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Peter Moylan
Our present warming is happening at lightning speed compared with
anything that happened in the past. There are people now living on
islands that will probably disappear completely before politicians get
around to noticing the urgency of the problem.
I'm still waiting for the next landslide of continental shelf into the
Norwegian trench.
The next major sea rise event is likely to be from the collapse of
Antarctic ice. The glaciers in West Antarctica are being melted from
underneath because of ocean warming, so it's possible that they could
collapse in very large chunks. As far as I know, though, the models are
not yet good enough to say whether or when this will happen.

(Who gets to decide which side of Antarctica is west? The entire coast
is north of the South Pole.)
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Paul Wolff
2017-01-24 11:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Peter Moylan
Our present warming is happening at lightning speed compared with
anything that happened in the past. There are people now living on
islands that will probably disappear completely before politicians get
around to noticing the urgency of the problem.
I'm still waiting for the next landslide of continental shelf into the
Norwegian trench.
The next major sea rise event is likely to be from the collapse of
Antarctic ice. The glaciers in West Antarctica are being melted from
underneath because of ocean warming, so it's possible that they could
collapse in very large chunks. As far as I know, though, the models are
not yet good enough to say whether or when this will happen.
A large chunk of the Ross ice shelf is about to break loose (can't
remember how many Olympic swimming pools-worth, but I seem to remember
it's a significant fraction of the size of Wales (NB no 'h' there)).
Assuming it's floating already, I suppose there won't be much physical
drama about it.
Post by Peter Moylan
(Who gets to decide which side of Antarctica is west? The entire coast
is north of the South Pole.)
The obvious dull answer is that westness and eastness are conferred by
the local longitudes.
--
Paul
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-01-24 13:30:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:04:41 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Peter Moylan
Our present warming is happening at lightning speed compared with
anything that happened in the past. There are people now living on
islands that will probably disappear completely before politicians get
around to noticing the urgency of the problem.
I'm still waiting for the next landslide of continental shelf into the
Norwegian trench.
The next major sea rise event is likely to be from the collapse of
Antarctic ice. The glaciers in West Antarctica are being melted from
underneath because of ocean warming, so it's possible that they could
collapse in very large chunks. As far as I know, though, the models are
not yet good enough to say whether or when this will happen.
There is a developing "situation" in the Antarctic:
http://www.sciencealert.com/the-massive-rift-in-the-antarctic-ice-shelf-has-already-gained-10-km-in-2017

The massive rift in the Antarctic ice shelf has already gained 10
km in 2017

One of the world's biggest icebergs is imminent.
....
Larsen C shelf – which is about 350 metres (1,150 feet) thick, and
floats on top of the ocean.
....
While losing Larsen C would create one of the biggest icebergs the
world has ever seen, the more worrying ramifications are what that
would mean for the Antarctic ice sheet – which the Larsen shelf
currently buffers from the sea.

When ice shelves break off from the continent to which they're
attached, it can speed up the flow of glaciers on the Antarctic ice
sheet into the ocean – which can cause sea levels to rise.

In the case of Larsen C disintegrating, it's been estimated that
this effect could cause sea levels to rise by around 10 centimetres
(3.9 inches).
....

http://www.projectmidas.org/blog/larsen-c-rift-continues-to-grow/
Post by Peter Moylan
(Who gets to decide which side of Antarctica is west? The entire coast
is north of the South Pole.)
West Antarctica is west of the zero meridian.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Moylan
2017-01-25 05:03:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:04:41 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
(Who gets to decide which side of Antarctica is west? The entire coast
is north of the South Pole.)
West Antarctica is west of the zero meridian.
That's a departure from the usual rule, though. For example, Western
Australia is east of the zero meridian. For every other continent we
define east and west by the relationship a location has to its own
continent, not to an arbitrary point in England.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
J. J. Lodder
2017-01-25 08:51:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:04:41 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
(Who gets to decide which side of Antarctica is west? The entire coast
is north of the South Pole.)
West Antarctica is west of the zero meridian.
That's a departure from the usual rule, though. For example, Western
Australia is east of the zero meridian. For every other continent we
define east and west by the relationship a location has to its own
continent, not to an arbitrary point in England.
Those times are past.
It is an arbitrary point on the equator nowadays,

Jan
Mark Brader
2017-01-25 10:59:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
West Antarctica is west of the zero meridian.
That's a departure from the usual rule, though.
True. However, it makes sense because of the way that directions work
near the poles.
Post by Peter Moylan
For example, Western Australia is east of the zero meridian. For
every other continent we define east and west by the relationship
a location has to its own continent...
True.

Except for the people who think it's an good trick to ask, as a
puzzle, which is the eastermost US state US -- and expect you to
interpret the question in reference to the Prime Meridian, so the
answer they want is Alaska instead of Maine.
Post by Peter Moylan
not to an arbitrary point in England.
The reference is to the Prime Meridian, which *in turn* was defined
by reference to a point in England. (Or at least, it was originally
-- like most of these things, it's more complicated now.)

And it wasn't an arbitrary choice; it was the one used to define the
longitude scale on the greatest number of maps.
--
Mark Brader | I'd [want] to configure my system to do [it] automatically.
Toronto | Then I'd have *another* thing to go wrong. I get a lot of
***@vex.net | satisfaction from fixing things that go wrong. --Mike Barnes

My text in this article is in the public domain.
J. J. Lodder
2017-01-25 12:21:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
West Antarctica is west of the zero meridian.
That's a departure from the usual rule, though.
True. However, it makes sense because of the way that directions work
near the poles.
Post by Peter Moylan
For example, Western Australia is east of the zero meridian. For
every other continent we define east and west by the relationship
a location has to its own continent...
True.
Except for the people who think it's an good trick to ask, as a
puzzle, which is the eastermost US state US -- and expect you to
interpret the question in reference to the Prime Meridian, so the
answer they want is Alaska instead of Maine.
Post by Peter Moylan
not to an arbitrary point in England.
The reference is to the Prime Meridian, which *in turn* was defined
by reference to a point in England. (Or at least, it was originally
-- like most of these things, it's more complicated now.)
And it wasn't an arbitrary choice; it was the one used to define the
longitude scale on the greatest number of maps.
It's not complicated at all.
All you need to remember is that zero degrees longitude
is NOT at that bronze stripe somewhere in London.
It is no longer tied to any material object.

For the rest, believe what your GPS tells you,

Jan
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-25 12:22:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Except for the people who think it's an good trick to ask, as a
puzzle, which is the eastermost US state US -- and expect you to
interpret the question in reference to the Prime Meridian, so the
answer they want is Alaska instead of Maine.
Presumably these are the same people who, in the /previous/ question,
ask which is the /westernmost/ US state, and the answer they want is Alaska.

(I'm afraid I had to check a map to establish that Hawaii's longitudinal
span is wholly contained within Alaska's, and so Hawaii would not be the
correct answer to either question.)
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Jerry Friedman
2017-01-25 21:36:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Mark Brader
Except for the people who think it's an good trick to ask, as a
puzzle, which is the eastermost US state US -- and expect you to
interpret the question in reference to the Prime Meridian, so the
answer they want is Alaska instead of Maine.
Presumably these are the same people who, in the /previous/ question,
ask which is the /westernmost/ US state, and the answer they want is Alaska.
(I'm afraid I had to check a map to establish that Hawaii's longitudinal
span is wholly contained within Alaska's, and so Hawaii would not be the
correct answer to either question.)
If you play your cards right, you can get people to answer "Alaska"
to the fourth question, which is "Which is the southernmost U.S.
state?" (That /is/ Hawaii.)
--
Jerry Friedman
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-25 22:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Mark Brader
Except for the people who think it's an good trick to ask, as a
puzzle, which is the eastermost US state US -- and expect you to
interpret the question in reference to the Prime Meridian, so the
answer they want is Alaska instead of Maine.
Presumably these are the same people who, in the /previous/ question,
ask which is the /westernmost/ US state, and the answer they want is Alaska.
(I'm afraid I had to check a map to establish that Hawaii's longitudinal
span is wholly contained within Alaska's, and so Hawaii would not be the
correct answer to either question.)
If you play your cards right, you can get people to answer "Alaska"
to the fourth question, which is "Which is the southernmost U.S.
state?" (That /is/ Hawaii.)
Now that's not nice.

I love it.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Charles Bishop
2017-04-15 15:21:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Mark Brader
Except for the people who think it's an good trick to ask, as a
puzzle, which is the eastermost US state US -- and expect you to
interpret the question in reference to the Prime Meridian, so the
answer they want is Alaska instead of Maine.
Presumably these are the same people who, in the /previous/ question,
ask which is the /westernmost/ US state, and the answer they want is Alaska.
(I'm afraid I had to check a map to establish that Hawaii's longitudinal
span is wholly contained within Alaska's, and so Hawaii would not be the
correct answer to either question.)
If you play your cards right, you can get people to answer "Alaska"
to the fourth question, which is "Which is the southernmost U.S.
state?" (That /is/ Hawaii.)
Now that's not nice.
I love it.
I think I understand how, given the right assumptions, how Alaska could
be the easternmost state, but how is it possibly the southernmost state?
--
charles, yes, I have been thinking about this for a while
Tony Cooper
2017-04-15 15:53:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 08:21:09 -0700, Charles Bishop
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Mark Brader
Except for the people who think it's an good trick to ask, as a
puzzle, which is the eastermost US state US -- and expect you to
interpret the question in reference to the Prime Meridian, so the
answer they want is Alaska instead of Maine.
Presumably these are the same people who, in the /previous/ question,
ask which is the /westernmost/ US state, and the answer they want is Alaska.
(I'm afraid I had to check a map to establish that Hawaii's longitudinal
span is wholly contained within Alaska's, and so Hawaii would not be the
correct answer to either question.)
If you play your cards right, you can get people to answer "Alaska"
to the fourth question, which is "Which is the southernmost U.S.
state?" (That /is/ Hawaii.)
Now that's not nice.
I love it.
I think I understand how, given the right assumptions, how Alaska could
be the easternmost state, but how is it possibly the southernmost state?
When it is a "typographical error" for "Florida" in a PTD answer to
"What is the southernmost state of the contiguous 48 states?"
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
b***@aol.com
2017-04-15 16:21:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 08:21:09 -0700, Charles Bishop
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Mark Brader
Except for the people who think it's an good trick to ask, as a
puzzle, which is the eastermost US state US -- and expect you to
interpret the question in reference to the Prime Meridian, so the
answer they want is Alaska instead of Maine.
Presumably these are the same people who, in the /previous/ question,
ask which is the /westernmost/ US state, and the answer they want is Alaska.
(I'm afraid I had to check a map to establish that Hawaii's longitudinal
span is wholly contained within Alaska's, and so Hawaii would not be the
correct answer to either question.)
If you play your cards right, you can get people to answer "Alaska"
to the fourth question, which is "Which is the southernmost U.S.
state?" (That /is/ Hawaii.)
Now that's not nice.
I love it.
I think I understand how, given the right assumptions, how Alaska could
be the easternmost state, but how is it possibly the southernmost state?
When it is a "typographical error" for "Florida" in a PTD answer to
"What is the southernmost state of the contiguous 48 states?"
Maybe the linguistic concept of "interpolation" has rubbed off on him?
Post by Tony Cooper
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-15 16:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 08:21:09 -0700, Charles Bishop
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Mark Brader
Except for the people who think it's an good trick to ask, as a
puzzle, which is the eastermost US state US -- and expect you to
interpret the question in reference to the Prime Meridian, so the
answer they want is Alaska instead of Maine.
Presumably these are the same people who, in the /previous/ question,
ask which is the /westernmost/ US state, and the answer they want is Alaska.
(I'm afraid I had to check a map to establish that Hawaii's longitudinal
span is wholly contained within Alaska's, and so Hawaii would not be the
correct answer to either question.)
If you play your cards right, you can get people to answer "Alaska"
to the fourth question, which is "Which is the southernmost U.S.
state?" (That /is/ Hawaii.)
Now that's not nice.
I love it.
I think I understand how, given the right assumptions, how Alaska could
be the easternmost state, but how is it possibly the southernmost state?
When it is a "typographical error" for "Florida" in a PTD answer to
"What is the southernmost state of the contiguous 48 states?"
Don't blame cahreles's stupidity and your gullibility on me.
Charles Bishop
2017-04-16 01:19:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 08:21:09 -0700, Charles Bishop
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Mark Brader
Except for the people who think it's an good trick to ask, as a
puzzle, which is the eastermost US state US -- and expect you to
interpret the question in reference to the Prime Meridian, so the
answer they want is Alaska instead of Maine.
Presumably these are the same people who, in the /previous/ question,
ask which is the /westernmost/ US state, and the answer they want is Alaska.
(I'm afraid I had to check a map to establish that Hawaii's longitudinal
span is wholly contained within Alaska's, and so Hawaii would not be the
correct answer to either question.)
If you play your cards right, you can get people to answer "Alaska"
to the fourth question, which is "Which is the southernmost U.S.
state?" (That /is/ Hawaii.)
Now that's not nice.
I love it.
I think I understand how, given the right assumptions, how Alaska could
be the easternmost state, but how is it possibly the southernmost state?
When it is a "typographical error" for "Florida" in a PTD answer to
"What is the southernmost state of the contiguous 48 states?"
They're spelled almost the same.
--
charles
Peter Moylan
2017-04-16 01:46:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 08:21:09 -0700, Charles Bishop
Post by Charles Bishop
I think I understand how, given the right assumptions, how Alaska could
be the easternmost state, but how is it possibly the southernmost state?
When it is a "typographical error" for "Florida" in a PTD answer to
"What is the southernmost state of the contiguous 48 states?"
My wife should know that. I'll ask her.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter Moylan
2017-04-16 01:33:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Mark Brader
Except for the people who think it's an good trick to ask, as a
puzzle, which is the eastermost US state US -- and expect you to
interpret the question in reference to the Prime Meridian, so the
answer they want is Alaska instead of Maine.
Presumably these are the same people who, in the /previous/ question,
ask which is the /westernmost/ US state, and the answer they want is Alaska.
(I'm afraid I had to check a map to establish that Hawaii's longitudinal
span is wholly contained within Alaska's, and so Hawaii would not be the
correct answer to either question.)
If you play your cards right, you can get people to answer "Alaska"
to the fourth question, which is "Which is the southernmost U.S.
state?" (That /is/ Hawaii.)
Now that's not nice.
I love it.
I think I understand how, given the right assumptions, how Alaska could
be the easternmost state, but how is it possibly the southernmost state?
The trick is to ask a series of questions to which the answer is always
"Alaska". At that point you can ask something like "What is the largest
crater on the moon?", and your victim will of course answer "Alaska".
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
RH Draney
2017-04-16 04:55:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
The trick is to ask a series of questions to which the answer is always
"Alaska". At that point you can ask something like "What is the largest
crater on the moon?", and your victim will of course answer "Alaska".
Remembered from third grade:

Q: What did you eat at breakfast?
A: Pea soup.
Q: What did you eat at lunch?
A: Pea soup.
Q: What did you eat at dinner?
A: Pea soup.
Q: What did you eat as a snack before bed?
A: Pea soup.
Q: What did you do all night?

....r
GordonD
2017-04-17 14:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Richard Heathfield
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 5:22:15 AM UTC-7, Richard
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Mark Brader
Except for the people who think it's an good trick to ask,
as a puzzle, which is the eastermost US state US -- and
expect you to interpret the question in reference to the
Prime Meridian, so the answer they want is Alaska instead
of Maine.
Presumably these are the same people who, in the /previous/
question, ask which is the /westernmost/ US state, and the
answer they want is Alaska.
(I'm afraid I had to check a map to establish that Hawaii's
longitudinal span is wholly contained within Alaska's, and so
Hawaii would not be the correct answer to either question.)
If you play your cards right, you can get people to answer
"Alaska" to the fourth question, which is "Which is the
southernmost U.S. state?" (That /is/ Hawaii.)
Now that's not nice.
I love it.
I think I understand how, given the right assumptions, how Alaska
could be the easternmost state, but how is it possibly the
southernmost state?
The trick is to ask a series of questions to which the answer is
always "Alaska". At that point you can ask something like "What is
the largest crater on the moon?", and your victim will of course
answer "Alaska".
Along the same lines:

Q: What's the opposite of 'fast'?
A: Slow
Q: What's a female deer called?
A: Doe
Q: What's the opposite of 'Yes'?
A: No
Q: What does a needle do?
A: Sew
Q: What's on the end of your foot?
A: Toe
Q: What does a red traffic light mean?
A: ...

There's a similar one where all the answers rhyme with 'joke' and the
final question asks what the white of an egg is called.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-04-17 15:03:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Richard Heathfield
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 5:22:15 AM UTC-7, Richard
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Mark Brader
Except for the people who think it's an good trick to ask,
as a puzzle, which is the eastermost US state US -- and
expect you to interpret the question in reference to the
Prime Meridian, so the answer they want is Alaska instead
of Maine.
Presumably these are the same people who, in the /previous/
question, ask which is the /westernmost/ US state, and the
answer they want is Alaska.
(I'm afraid I had to check a map to establish that Hawaii's
longitudinal span is wholly contained within Alaska's, and so
Hawaii would not be the correct answer to either question.)
If you play your cards right, you can get people to answer
"Alaska" to the fourth question, which is "Which is the
southernmost U.S. state?" (That /is/ Hawaii.)
Now that's not nice.
I love it.
I think I understand how, given the right assumptions, how Alaska
could be the easternmost state, but how is it possibly the
southernmost state?
The trick is to ask a series of questions to which the answer is
always "Alaska". At that point you can ask something like "What is
the largest crater on the moon?", and your victim will of course
answer "Alaska".
Q: What's the opposite of 'fast'?
A: Slow
Q: What's a female deer called?
A: Doe
Q: What's the opposite of 'Yes'?
A: No
Q: What does a needle do?
A: Sew
Q: What's on the end of your foot?
A: Toe
Q: What does a red traffic light mean?
A: ...
There's a similar one where all the answers rhyme with 'joke' and the
final question asks what the white of an egg is called.
The version I heard as a lad was very short: "If f o l k spells [fəʊ̯k]
what's the word for the white of an egg?"
--
athel
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-04-17 16:46:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 17:03:25 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Richard Heathfield
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 5:22:15 AM UTC-7, Richard
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Mark Brader
Except for the people who think it's an good trick to ask,
as a puzzle, which is the eastermost US state US -- and
expect you to interpret the question in reference to the
Prime Meridian, so the answer they want is Alaska instead
of Maine.
Presumably these are the same people who, in the /previous/
question, ask which is the /westernmost/ US state, and the
answer they want is Alaska.
(I'm afraid I had to check a map to establish that Hawaii's
longitudinal span is wholly contained within Alaska's, and so
Hawaii would not be the correct answer to either question.)
If you play your cards right, you can get people to answer
"Alaska" to the fourth question, which is "Which is the
southernmost U.S. state?" (That /is/ Hawaii.)
Now that's not nice.
I love it.
I think I understand how, given the right assumptions, how Alaska
could be the easternmost state, but how is it possibly the
southernmost state?
The trick is to ask a series of questions to which the answer is
always "Alaska". At that point you can ask something like "What is
the largest crater on the moon?", and your victim will of course
answer "Alaska".
Q: What's the opposite of 'fast'?
A: Slow
Q: What's a female deer called?
A: Doe
Q: What's the opposite of 'Yes'?
A: No
Q: What does a needle do?
A: Sew
Q: What's on the end of your foot?
A: Toe
Q: What does a red traffic light mean?
A: ...
There's a similar one where all the answers rhyme with 'joke' and the
final question asks what the white of an egg is called.
The version I heard as a lad was very short: "If f o l k spells [f???k]
what's the word for the white of an egg?"
There is one using spoken words and a visible gesture.

The questioner moves a finger in a line from left to right along a
surface such as the page of a book. While doing this he/she asks "What
is the sign language used by deaf people called?". I've seen this done a
few times and the answer given was always "Braille".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-17 17:00:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 17:03:25 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
The version I heard as a lad was very short: "If f o l k spells [f???k]
[PWD should adjust his encoding]
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
what's the word for the white of an egg?"
There is one using spoken words and a visible gesture.
The questioner moves a finger in a line from left to right along a
surface such as the page of a book. While doing this he/she asks "What
is the sign language used by deaf people called?". I've seen this done a
few times and the answer given was always "Braille".
Maybe they think "BSL" stands for Braille Sign Language. Is Moon still current Over There?
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
2017-04-17 17:47:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Is Moon still current Over There?
Please ignore the Loony Linguist's stupid question. Thanks.

See the lonesome attention-whore:
Loading Image...

--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
The Conscience of AUE
Richard Tobin
2017-04-17 19:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Is Moon still current Over There?
I once saw it on a bottle of bleach or similar, but that was decades
ago.

-- Richard
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-04-17 20:57:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 10:00:23 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 17:03:25 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
The version I heard as a lad was very short: "If f o l k spells [f???k]
[PWD should adjust his encoding]
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
what's the word for the white of an egg?"
There is one using spoken words and a visible gesture.
The questioner moves a finger in a line from left to right along a
surface such as the page of a book. While doing this he/she asks "What
is the sign language used by deaf people called?". I've seen this done a
few times and the answer given was always "Braille".
Maybe they think "BSL" stands for Braille Sign Language.
That wasn't it. It was the combination of the question about someone
with one form of sensory impairment and the movement of the finger
misleading by suggesting the reading of Braille letters.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Is Moon still current Over There?
I have no idea.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
GordonD
2017-04-17 17:04:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 17:03:25 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Richard Heathfield
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 5:22:15 AM UTC-7,
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Mark Brader
Except for the people who think it's an good trick to
ask, as a puzzle, which is the eastermost US state US
-- and expect you to interpret the question in
reference to the Prime Meridian, so the answer they
want is Alaska instead of Maine.
Presumably these are the same people who, in the
/previous/ question, ask which is the /westernmost/ US
state, and the answer they want is Alaska.
(I'm afraid I had to check a map to establish that
Hawaii's longitudinal span is wholly contained within
Alaska's, and so Hawaii would not be the correct answer
to either question.)
If you play your cards right, you can get people to
answer "Alaska" to the fourth question, which is "Which
is the southernmost U.S. state?" (That /is/ Hawaii.)
Now that's not nice.
I love it.
I think I understand how, given the right assumptions, how
Alaska could be the easternmost state, but how is it possibly
the southernmost state?
The trick is to ask a series of questions to which the answer
is always "Alaska". At that point you can ask something like
"What is the largest crater on the moon?", and your victim will
of course answer "Alaska".
Q: What's the opposite of 'fast'? A: Slow Q: What's a female deer
called? A: Doe Q: What's the opposite of 'Yes'? A: No Q: What
Toe Q: What does a red traffic light mean? A: ...
There's a similar one where all the answers rhyme with 'joke' and
the final question asks what the white of an egg is called.
The version I heard as a lad was very short: "If f o l k spells
[f???k] what's the word for the white of an egg?"
There is one using spoken words and a visible gesture.
The questioner moves a finger in a line from left to right along a
surface such as the page of a book. While doing this he/she asks
"What is the sign language used by deaf people called?". I've seen
this done a few times and the answer given was always "Braille".
Similar one about how a mute man would ask for a hammer in a DIY shop
(makes hammering gesture), then how a blind man would ask for a pair of
scissors.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-04-17 17:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[ ... ]
The version I heard as a lad was very short: "If f o l k spells [fəʊ̯k]
what's the word for the white of an egg?"
I remembered it badly. It's better as "If f o l k spells [fəʊ̯k] how do
you spell the white of an egg?"
--
athel
Jerry Friedman
2017-04-18 03:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ... ]
The version I heard as a lad was very short: "If f o l k spells [fəʊ̯k]
what's the word for the white of an egg?"
I remembered it badly. It's better as "If f o l k spells [fəʊ̯k] how do
you spell the white of an egg?"
I think it's more effective with "joke", "poke", and "smoke". The
victim thinks the idea is to get him or her to say "y-o-k-e". Worked on
me, anyway.
--
Jerry Friedman
RH Draney
2017-04-18 10:59:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ... ]
The version I heard as a lad was very short: "If f o l k spells [fəʊ̯k]
what's the word for the white of an egg?"
I remembered it badly. It's better as "If f o l k spells [fəʊ̯k] how do
you spell the white of an egg?"
I think it's more effective with "joke", "poke", and "smoke". The
victim thinks the idea is to get him or her to say "y-o-k-e". Worked on
me, anyway.
Here's a CD you can spend your hard-earned yuan on:

Loading Image...

....r
Jerry Friedman
2017-04-18 03:47:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Mark Brader
Except for the people who think it's an good trick to ask,
as a puzzle, which is the eastermost US state US -- and
expect you to interpret the question in reference to the
Prime Meridian, so the answer they want is Alaska instead
of Maine.
Presumably these are the same people who, in the /previous/
question, ask which is the /westernmost/ US state, and the
answer they want is Alaska.
(I'm afraid I had to check a map to establish that Hawaii's
longitudinal span is wholly contained within Alaska's, and so
Hawaii would not be the correct answer to either question.)
If you play your cards right, you can get people to answer
"Alaska" to the fourth question, which is "Which is the
southernmost U.S. state?" (That /is/ Hawaii.)
Now that's not nice.
I love it.
I think I understand how, given the right assumptions, how Alaska
could be the easternmost state, but how is it possibly the
southernmost state?
The trick is to ask a series of questions to which the answer is
always "Alaska". At that point you can ask something like "What is
the largest crater on the moon?", and your victim will of course
answer "Alaska".
Q: What's the opposite of 'fast'?
A: Slow
Q: What's a female deer called?
A: Doe
Q: What's the opposite of 'Yes'?
A: No
Q: What does a needle do?
A: Sew
Q: What's on the end of your foot?
A: Toe
Q: What does a red traffic light mean?
A: ...
There's a similar one where all the answers rhyme with 'joke' and the
final question asks what the white of an egg is called.
How do you pronounce m-a-c-d-o-n-a-l-d?

How do you pronounce m-a-c-p-h-e-e?

How do you pronounce m-a-c-g-r-e-g-o-r?

How do you pronounce m-a-c-h-i-n-e-r-y?
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2017-04-18 12:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by GordonD
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Charles Bishop
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Mark Brader
Except for the people who think it's an good trick to ask,
as a puzzle, which is the eastermost US state US -- and
expect you to interpret the question in reference to the
Prime Meridian, so the answer they want is Alaska instead
of Maine.
Presumably these are the same people who, in the /previous/
question, ask which is the /westernmost/ US state, and the
answer they want is Alaska.
(I'm afraid I had to check a map to establish that Hawaii's
longitudinal span is wholly contained within Alaska's, and so
Hawaii would not be the correct answer to either question.)
If you play your cards right, you can get people to answer
"Alaska" to the fourth question, which is "Which is the
southernmost U.S. state?" (That /is/ Hawaii.)
Now that's not nice.
I love it.
I think I understand how, given the right assumptions, how Alaska
could be the easternmost state, but how is it possibly the
southernmost state?
The trick is to ask a series of questions to which the answer is
always "Alaska". At that point you can ask something like "What is
the largest crater on the moon?", and your victim will of course
answer "Alaska".
Q: What's the opposite of 'fast'?
A: Slow
Q: What's a female deer called?
A: Doe
Q: What's the opposite of 'Yes'?
A: No
Q: What does a needle do?
A: Sew
Q: What's on the end of your foot?
A: Toe
Q: What does a red traffic light mean?
A: ...
There's a similar one where all the answers rhyme with 'joke' and the
final question asks what the white of an egg is called.
How do you pronounce m-a-c-d-o-n-a-l-d?
How do you pronounce m-a-c-p-h-e-e?
How do you pronounce m-a-c-g-r-e-g-o-r?
How do you pronounce m-a-c-h-i-n-e-r-y?
How do they justify the usual pronunciation of McInerny?

CDB
2017-01-26 12:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Mark Brader
Except for the people who think it's an good trick to ask, as a
puzzle, which is the eastermost US state US -- and expect you to
interpret the question in reference to the Prime Meridian, so
the answer they want is Alaska instead of Maine.
Presumably these are the same people who, in the /previous/
question, ask which is the /westernmost/ US state, and the answer
they want is Alaska.
(I'm afraid I had to check a map to establish that Hawaii's
longitudinal span is wholly contained within Alaska's, and so
Hawaii would not be the correct answer to either question.)
If you play your cards right, you can get people to answer "Alaska"
to the fourth question, which is "Which is the southernmost U.S.
state?" (That /is/ Hawaii.)
Pork!


Hans Aberg
2017-01-25 21:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
West Antarctica is west of the zero meridian.
That's a departure from the usual rule, though.
True. However, it makes sense because of the way that directions work
near the poles.
Post by Peter Moylan
For example, Western Australia is east of the zero meridian. For
every other continent we define east and west by the relationship
a location has to its own continent...
True.
Except for the people who think it's an good trick to ask, as a
puzzle, which is the eastermost US state US -- and expect you to
interpret the question in reference to the Prime Meridian, so the
answer they want is Alaska instead of Maine.
This would be true if Alaska is the state where they the most celebrate
the Easter.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-01-25 13:18:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:03:35 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:04:41 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
(Who gets to decide which side of Antarctica is west? The entire coast
is north of the South Pole.)
West Antarctica is west of the zero meridian.
That's a departure from the usual rule, though. For example, Western
Australia is east of the zero meridian. For every other continent we
define east and west by the relationship a location has to its own
continent, not to an arbitrary point in England.
The "arbitrary point in England" is the whole system of longitude and
the two hemispheres, East and West.

West Antarctic is in the Western Hemisphere and East Antarctic is in the
Eastern Hemisphere. They are named from a wider point of view not a
purely local one.

http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/map/antarctica_map.htm

Similarly for latitude. Antarctica is in the Southern Ocean, but that
ocean is north of Antarctica.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
J. J. Lodder
2017-01-23 12:23:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 07:09:52 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:23:55 -0800 (PST), Lothar Frings
Post by Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated as
singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/
United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb
forms; for example, we say "The United States is in the Western
Hemisphere," not "The United States are in the Western
Hemisphere." This has been the case for over a century. Think of
United States as the name of a country like any other.
Really... in German "Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika"
has always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
They are one nation. Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition
that all men are created equal.
But you'll never come to terms with 'The Netherlands',
or 'The (Republic of the) Seven United Provinces' before that.
You can find lots of examples for both plural and singular,
Which is why you're probably never going to wipe out "Holland" for the English
name of the country.
Also parts of Holland are in England.
Or, more accurately, Parts of Holland is in England.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parts_of_Holland
The Parts of Holland /'h?l?nd/ is a historical subdivision used in
south-east Lincolnshire, England from 1889 to 1974. The name is
still recognised locally and survives in the district of South
Holland.
There is a resemblance in landscape between the Parts of Holland and
Holland, the region in the Netherlands, although their meanings are
different. Holland in England means "land of the hill spurs",
although hill spurs are hardly obvious, while the Dutch Holland is
derived from the Middle Dutch term holtland ("wooded land"). Both
Hollands have landscapes that are low lying and both are known for
tulip growing.
And they occupy opposite edges of the former Doggerland plain. I wonder
whether those mesolithics believed in global warming.
Well, mesolithic, it is almost historical times, about 6000 BCE.
Megalithic monuments were already being built,
and there were already beginnings of agriculture.
The oldest known boat is a thousand years older (Pesse)
so some of the last inhabitants may have escaped,

Jan
J. J. Lodder
2017-01-23 12:23:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 07:09:52 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:23:55 -0800 (PST), Lothar Frings
Post by Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated as
singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/
United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb
forms; for example, we say "The United States is in the
Western Hemisphere," not "The United States are in the
Western Hemisphere." This has been the case for over a
century. Think of United States as the name of a country like
any other.
Really... in German "Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika"
has always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
They are one nation. Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal.
But you'll never come to terms with 'The Netherlands',
or 'The (Republic of the) Seven United Provinces' before that.
You can find lots of examples for both plural and singular,
Which is why you're probably never going to wipe out "Holland" for the
English name of the country.
Also parts of Holland are in England.
Or, more accurately, Parts of Holland is in England.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parts_of_Holland
The Parts of Holland /'h?l?nd/ is a historical subdivision used in
south-east Lincolnshire, England from 1889 to 1974. The name is
still recognised locally and survives in the district of South
Holland.
There is a resemblance in landscape between the Parts of Holland and
Holland, the region in the Netherlands, although their meanings are
different. Holland in England means "land of the hill spurs",
although hill spurs are hardly obvious, while the Dutch Holland is
derived from the Middle Dutch term holtland ("wooded land"). Both
Hollands have landscapes that are low lying and both are known for
tulip growing.
Holland in contrast with 'Blootland'
(E. naked, bare, empty country)

Jan
J. J. Lodder
2017-01-23 12:23:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:23:55 -0800 (PST), Lothar Frings
Post by Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated as
singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/
United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb
forms; for example, we say "The United States is in the
Western Hemisphere," not "The United States are in the Western
Hemisphere." This has been the case for over a century. Think
of United States as the name of a country like any other.
Really... in German "Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika"
has always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
They are one nation. Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal.
But you'll never come to terms with 'The Netherlands',
or 'The (Republic of the) Seven United Provinces' before that.
You can find lots of examples for both plural and singular,
Which is why you're probably never going to wipe out "Holland" for the English
name of the country.
Who tried?

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2017-01-23 12:55:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
But you'll never come to terms with 'The Netherlands',
or 'The (Republic of the) Seven United Provinces' before that.
You can find lots of examples for both plural and singular,
Which is why you're probably never going to wipe out "Holland" for the English
name of the country.
Who tried?
Dutch pedants. The past tense in the question is inappropriate.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-01-18 18:45:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lothar Frings
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:23:55 -0800 (PST), Lothar Frings
Post by Lothar Frings
But "Mounties" is clearly plural.
So is "The United States of America", but it is usually treated as
singular.
http://grammarist.com/usage/united-states/
United States is a singular noun and takes singular verb forms; for
example, we say “The United States is in the Western Hemisphere,”
not “The United States are in the Western Hemisphere.” This has been
the case for over a century. Think of United States as the name of a
country like any other.
Really... in German "Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika"
has always be plural. After all, they are 50 states.
Also plural in French, les États-Unis d'Amérique, and in Spanish, los
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica, and when abbreviated: EE.UU. de N.A.

In French they also have "les USA" -- thus treating the English
abbreviation as plural.
--
athel
Loading...