Microsoft IS or Microsoft ARE?

4 minutes ago, Bass wrote

*snip*

People, my friend.

OK, Mittens.

I'm with Romney on this, corporations are people ... just fairly dysfunctional people.

2 hours ago, cbae wrote

superfluous vowels seem to colour the language. 

Really? I just thought there was no "u" in the American alphabet.

(I'm not sure they are superfluous - we don't say col - or; the pronunciation is closer to cul - ur. Not sure why the "o" is there though... and mostly I think we say either fave - rut (when being sloppy) or fave - ur -ut. And "aluminium" we do actually pronounce as we write.) 

FWIW, stackexchange has a site for english pedantry: http://english.stackexchange.com/

25 minutes ago, blowdart wrote

*snip*

Exactly.

Mind you this week I had a fun day's worth of "Is it A SSL Certificate or An SSL Certificate", and I was using .ac.uk sites to backup my argument it was An SSL Certificate. I won. Because I have commit rights to that project and the PM doesn't *evil*

It's "an" only because you don't pronounce "SSL" phonetically. You spell it out phonetically as: "ess ess el". The word "ess" (yes, it's a word) requires a preceding "an" article rather than "a".

It's the same thing with HTML. "I created an HTML page.". Phonetically, it's "I created an Aitch Tee Em El page."

And, yes, "aitch" is a real word for the letter "H".

A similar thing that drives me round the bend is people incorrectly prefixing words that begin with "h" with "an" when they don't drop the h in the pronunciation (or "shouldn't" drop the h".

 "An historic" and  "an hotel" being prime examples. It's not as bad if they drop the h, but most people don't drop the h for those words. It is "a historic" or "an 'istoric". 

EDIT: The BBC do this all the time, I do wonder whether it may be part of their official pronunciation guide. (or whether they're supposed to say "an 'istoric" but the reporters slip up)

I can live with those minor grammatical issues, I can live with the frequently incorrect use of the apostrophe, and I can even live with the way USA spells some words such as colour/color.

Where I draw a line is with incorrect selection of commonly used words, such as: lose/loose, your/you're, there/their/they're.

Yes, there are a milliard other things with which to take issue.

@elmer:In written English. But in spoken English most of those errors wouldn't occur. I have a much bigger problem with things that read wrong, sound wrong inherently than a one off error. If they're writing the error consistently then yes, no excuse.

19 hours ago, cbae wrote

@blowdart: How about?

That group of people over at Microsoft is just a swell bunch of guys!

Sounds more natural, right?

Nope, definitely "wrong"* in that case, that should be:

That (group of people over at Microsoft) are just a swell bunch of guys!

Because you're definitely refering to multiple entities when you say "group of" (and end with guys). In most other situations though, it's fine to treat a corporation as a singular entity so is/are can both be acceptable.

*Well in to the degree that any usage of English can actually be considered wrong. It's not French, after all.

17 hours ago, GoddersUK wrote

*snip*

Really? I just thought there was no "u" in the American alphabet.

(I'm not sure they are superfluous - we don't say col - or; the pronunciation is closer to cul - ur. Not sure why the "o" is there though... and mostly I think we say either fave - rut (when being sloppy) or fave - ur -ut. And "aluminium" we do actually pronounce as we write.) 

This reminded me of this:

@Sven Groot: "The Dutch speak four languages and smoke marijuana."

So that's the secret to being multi-lingual!

13 hours ago, cbae wrote

Yes, there are a milliard other things with which to take issue.

The only time I have ever come across the term "milliard" irl is when reading Jules Vern. 

1 hour ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

Nope, definitely "wrong"* in that case, that should be:

That (group of people over at Microsoft) are just a swell bunch of guys!

Because you're definitely refering to multiple entities when you say "group of" (and end with guys).

A group and bunch always refer to multiple entities. It would be rather silly to say "a group of guy" or "a bunch of grape". The words "group" and "bunch", although both collective nouns, are themselves singular noun forms. "Groups" and "bunches" are analogous plural forms. That's where the confusion lies.

I think I'd defer to Prof. Brians' rule that I quoted before:

When the group is being considered as a whole, it can be treated as a single entity: "the group was ready to go on stage." But when the individuality of its members is being emphasized, "group" is plural: "the group were in disagreement about where to go for dinner."

That group of people over at Microsoft IS just a swell bunch of guys!

That group of people over at Microsoft ARE bickering with each other.

This bunch of grapes IS ready to be processed into wine.

This bunch of grapes ARE spreading blight among themselves.