Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
In fact, the grammar checker seems to have green twiddlyitis with the
following: The staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "staff is" but see below) Staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "Staff is" or "Staffs are" Staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs"). The staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs" but see above). A staff is happy. "A staff" has twiddles (suggests "Staffs") Is it fixable? How? Word 2003 SP2. |
#2
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
Bill
Not fixable. It is still present in W2007 too. Staff (and crowd) are collective nouns, so 'the staff is' and 'the crowd is' are both correct. The grammar checker happily accepts 'is or are' with crowd - but with staff, the checker accepts neither as correct. Both the handling of crowd and staff are inconsistent and daft. -- Terry Farrell - MS Word MVP "Bill Davy" wrote in message ... In fact, the grammar checker seems to have green twiddlyitis with the following: The staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "staff is" but see below) Staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "Staff is" or "Staffs are" Staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs"). The staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs" but see above). A staff is happy. "A staff" has twiddles (suggests "Staffs") Is it fixable? How? Word 2003 SP2. |
#3
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
Word 2000 seems to handle it correctly, though.
-- Stefan Blom Microsoft Word MVP "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... Bill Not fixable. It is still present in W2007 too. Staff (and crowd) are collective nouns, so 'the staff is' and 'the crowd is' are both correct. The grammar checker happily accepts 'is or are' with crowd - but with staff, the checker accepts neither as correct. Both the handling of crowd and staff are inconsistent and daft. -- Terry Farrell - MS Word MVP "Bill Davy" wrote in message ... In fact, the grammar checker seems to have green twiddlyitis with the following: The staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "staff is" but see below) Staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "Staff is" or "Staffs are" Staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs"). The staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs" but see above). A staff is happy. "A staff" has twiddles (suggests "Staffs") Is it fixable? How? Word 2003 SP2. |
#4
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
That's progress for you, then :-(
Bill "Stefan Blom" wrote in message ... Word 2000 seems to handle it correctly, though. -- Stefan Blom Microsoft Word MVP "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... Bill Not fixable. It is still present in W2007 too. Staff (and crowd) are collective nouns, so 'the staff is' and 'the crowd is' are both correct. The grammar checker happily accepts 'is or are' with crowd - but with staff, the checker accepts neither as correct. Both the handling of crowd and staff are inconsistent and daft. -- Terry Farrell - MS Word MVP "Bill Davy" wrote in message ... In fact, the grammar checker seems to have green twiddlyitis with the following: The staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "staff is" but see below) Staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "Staff is" or "Staffs are" Staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs"). The staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs" but see above). A staff is happy. "A staff" has twiddles (suggests "Staffs") Is it fixable? How? Word 2003 SP2. |
#5
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
OK, I'll log it to MS. Hey ho.
"Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... Bill Not fixable. It is still present in W2007 too. Staff (and crowd) are collective nouns, so 'the staff is' and 'the crowd is' are both correct. The grammar checker happily accepts 'is or are' with crowd - but with staff, the checker accepts neither as correct. Both the handling of crowd and staff are inconsistent and daft. -- Terry Farrell - MS Word MVP "Bill Davy" wrote in message ... In fact, the grammar checker seems to have green twiddlyitis with the following: The staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "staff is" but see below) Staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "Staff is" or "Staffs are" Staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs"). The staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs" but see above). A staff is happy. "A staff" has twiddles (suggests "Staffs") Is it fixable? How? Word 2003 SP2. |
#6
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
Hi,
According to my sources, "staff" behaves differently in US and UK English. In US English, when "staff" is the subject of a verb, it is normally followed by singular verbs only. But plural pronouns can be used: The staff is currently on vacation. They will be back next Monday. In UK English, "staff" is normally followed by plural verbs: The staff in this company are very young. In US English, "staff" can only be singular: They have a staff of a hundred working night shifts (but not "A hundred staff"). In UK English, "staff" can be both singular and plural: They have a staff of a hundred working night shifts. but also They have a hundred staff working night shifts. In both US and UK English, "staff" can be used in the plural to refer to more than one such group: The senators and their staffs. Obviously, the Word 2007 grammar checker knows nothing about all this. Hope this helps. Robert ----------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:38:49 +0100, Terry Farrell wrote: Bill Not fixable. It is still present in W2007 too. Staff (and crowd) are collective nouns, so 'the staff is' and 'the crowd is' are both correct. The grammar checker happily accepts 'is or are' with crowd - but with staff, the checker accepts neither as correct. Both the handling of crowd and staff are inconsistent and daft. |
#7
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
How does UK English handle the use of "staff" to mean a walking stick or a
musical staff, either of which is decidedly singular? -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Robert" wrote in message ... Hi, According to my sources, "staff" behaves differently in US and UK English. In US English, when "staff" is the subject of a verb, it is normally followed by singular verbs only. But plural pronouns can be used: The staff is currently on vacation. They will be back next Monday. In UK English, "staff" is normally followed by plural verbs: The staff in this company are very young. In US English, "staff" can only be singular: They have a staff of a hundred working night shifts (but not "A hundred staff"). In UK English, "staff" can be both singular and plural: They have a staff of a hundred working night shifts. but also They have a hundred staff working night shifts. In both US and UK English, "staff" can be used in the plural to refer to more than one such group: The senators and their staffs. Obviously, the Word 2007 grammar checker knows nothing about all this. Hope this helps. Robert ----------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:38:49 +0100, Terry Farrell wrote: Bill Not fixable. It is still present in W2007 too. Staff (and crowd) are collective nouns, so 'the staff is' and 'the crowd is' are both correct. The grammar checker happily accepts 'is or are' with crowd - but with staff, the checker accepts neither as correct. Both the handling of crowd and staff are inconsistent and daft. |
#8
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote in
How does UK English handle the use of "staff" to mean a walking stick or a musical staff, either of which is decidedly singular? snip Staffs or staves. Incidentally, staves are also the strips of wood that are used as the walls of barrels - or they are in the UK anyway - and there is a singular, "stave". -- PeterMcC If you feel that any of the above is incorrect, inappropriate or offensive in any way, please ignore it and accept my apologies. |
#9
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
It becomes clearer why the Grammar checker finds it difficult to be correct.
I normally use it even though it has many false positives, because it does catch true positives on occasions. Terry Farrell "PeterMcC" wrote in message ... Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote in How does UK English handle the use of "staff" to mean a walking stick or a musical staff, either of which is decidedly singular? snip Staffs or staves. Incidentally, staves are also the strips of wood that are used as the walls of barrels - or they are in the UK anyway - and there is a singular, "stave". -- PeterMcC If you feel that any of the above is incorrect, inappropriate or offensive in any way, please ignore it and accept my apologies. |
#10
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
I wasn't asking about the plural but about whether the grammar checker
allows singular verbs. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "PeterMcC" wrote in message ... Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote in How does UK English handle the use of "staff" to mean a walking stick or a musical staff, either of which is decidedly singular? snip Staffs or staves. Incidentally, staves are also the strips of wood that are used as the walls of barrels - or they are in the UK anyway - and there is a singular, "stave". -- PeterMcC If you feel that any of the above is incorrect, inappropriate or offensive in any way, please ignore it and accept my apologies. |
#11
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
The original posting referred to "staff" as a (happy) group of people. This
is the meaning where grammatical use might be different. In this particular sense, "staff" belongs to the so-called "group" or "collective" nouns. Michael Swan (Practical English Usage, OUP) gives the following examples of "group nouns": bank the BBC choir class club committee England (the football team) family firm government jury minister orchestra party public school staff team union In US English, singular verbs are normally used with the above words (senses), with the exception of "family" which can be followed by a plural verb. In UK English, both singular and plural verbs can actually be used, depending on whether the group is considered as a group of individuals or as an impersonal entity. Michael Swan gives the following examples of use: My firm are wonderful. They do all they can to help me. My firm was founded in the 18th century. All other senses of "staff" do not belong to the set of "collective nouns" and grammatically behave in the same way in both US and UK English. Note that "staff" meaning "a set of five lines on which music is written" might be treated differently in US and UK English. Sources disagree on the use of "staff/staffs" for a set of musical lines: some say such use belongs exclusively to (modern) US English (UK English using "stave/staves"); other sources say that "staff/staffs", "stave/staves" are used indifferently in both US and UK English; and other sources still say that both can be used, but that UK English has a preference for "stave/staves", US English for "staff/staffs". Take your pick! It is clear that no automatic grammar checker could ever make appropriate suggestions regarding such murky areas... ------------------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 08:31:01 -0500, Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote: How does UK English handle the use of "staff" to mean a walking stick or a musical staff, either of which is decidedly singular? |
#12
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote in
I wasn't asking about the plural but about whether the grammar checker allows singular verbs. Sorry - my mistake. Please ignore my post. -- PeterMcC If you feel that any of the above is incorrect, inappropriate or offensive in any way, please ignore it and accept my apologies. |
#13
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
Here's what I see on Word 2007
Staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged] The staff are happy. [Correctly flagged] The staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged] A staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged] What's the issue? "Bill Davy" wrote: In fact, the grammar checker seems to have green twiddlyitis with the following: The staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "staff is" but see below) Staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "Staff is" or "Staffs are" Staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs"). The staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs" but see above). A staff is happy. "A staff" has twiddles (suggests "Staffs") Is it fixable? How? Word 2003 SP2. |
#15
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
I copied and pasted your examples into my copy of w07 and got the same
results as you. "Mari Broman Olsen" Mari Broman wrote in message news Here's what I see on Word 2007 Staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged] The staff are happy. [Correctly flagged] The staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged] A staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged] What's the issue? "Bill Davy" wrote: In fact, the grammar checker seems to have green twiddlyitis with the following: The staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "staff is" but see below) Staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "Staff is" or "Staffs are" Staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs"). The staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs" but see above). A staff is happy. "A staff" has twiddles (suggests "Staffs") Is it fixable? How? Word 2003 SP2. |
#16
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
In English UK Word 2007, all those examples are flagged. The transition from
English US to English UK is not correct for either UK or US!" Terry Farrell "Mari Broman Olsen" Mari Broman wrote in message news Here's what I see on Word 2007 Staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged] The staff are happy. [Correctly flagged] The staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged] A staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged] What's the issue? "Bill Davy" wrote: |
#17
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
Robert
All reminiscent of the great 'coke is, coke are' debate! Terry "Robert" wrote in message .. . The original posting referred to "staff" as a (happy) group of people. This is the meaning where grammatical use might be different. In this particular sense, "staff" belongs to the so-called "group" or "collective" nouns. Michael Swan (Practical English Usage, OUP) gives the following examples of "group nouns": bank the BBC choir class club committee England (the football team) family firm government jury minister orchestra party public school staff team union In US English, singular verbs are normally used with the above words (senses), with the exception of "family" which can be followed by a plural verb. In UK English, both singular and plural verbs can actually be used, depending on whether the group is considered as a group of individuals or as an impersonal entity. Michael Swan gives the following examples of use: My firm are wonderful. They do all they can to help me. My firm was founded in the 18th century. All other senses of "staff" do not belong to the set of "collective nouns" and grammatically behave in the same way in both US and UK English. Note that "staff" meaning "a set of five lines on which music is written" might be treated differently in US and UK English. Sources disagree on the use of "staff/staffs" for a set of musical lines: some say such use belongs exclusively to (modern) US English (UK English using "stave/staves"); other sources say that "staff/staffs", "stave/staves" are used indifferently in both US and UK English; and other sources still say that both can be used, but that UK English has a preference for "stave/staves", US English for "staff/staffs". Take your pick! It is clear that no automatic grammar checker could ever make appropriate suggestions regarding such murky areas... ------------------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 08:31:01 -0500, Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote: How does UK English handle the use of "staff" to mean a walking stick or a musical staff, either of which is decidedly singular? |
#18
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
The staff *am* happy ;-)
Tom "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... | In English UK Word 2007, all those examples are flagged. The transition from | English US to English UK is not correct for either UK or US!" | | Terry Farrell | | "Mari Broman Olsen" Mari Broman wrote in | message news | Here's what I see on Word 2007 | | Staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged] | The staff are happy. [Correctly flagged] | The staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged] | A staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged] | | What's the issue? | | "Bill Davy" wrote: | |
#19
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
When I try to use 'viz' without the stop (which is correct), I get a
spelling error and a right-click gets me the suggestion 'wiz'. Terry "Dr Teeth" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:38:49 +0100, "Terry Farrell" wrote: Not fixable. It is still present in W2007 too. Slightly OT:- 'viz' is listed as an error, the correction being 'viz.' This is wrong. The 'z' in those abbreviations ending in it is an old-fashioned full stop and is not part if the abbreviation itself which is 'vi', for example. Cheers, Guy ** Stress - the condition brought about by having to ** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights ** out of someone who richly deserves it. |
#20
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
for English Canada in Word 2003:rejects
The staff is happy but accepts Hundreds of Staff of the company is working through the night for the project. A hundred Staff of the company is working through the night for the project. A hundreds Staff of the company is working through the night for the project. Staff of the company is working through the night for the project. A Staff of hundred the company is working through the night for the project. Word 2003 expects The staffs are happy and reject the "staff is" while ' The staffs are happy" may be debatable, "A Hundreds" definitely should not be accepted Well, I guess we just can't rely on words spelling and grammar checking entirely or else we have laughable to ludicrous writing to show I won't surprised there may be debate among the ms developers what should be accepted with the wide diversity of ethnic, lingual background among them. BTW outlook express does accept "The staff is happy" but then it also accepts The staffs is happy |
#21
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
It just goes to show that you cannot expect a computer to substitute for a
proper education. -- Graham Mayor - Word MVP My web site www.gmayor.com Word MVP web site http://word.mvps.org gs wrote: for English Canada in Word 2003:rejects The staff is happy but accepts Hundreds of Staff of the company is working through the night for the project. A hundred Staff of the company is working through the night for the project. A hundreds Staff of the company is working through the night for the project. Staff of the company is working through the night for the project. A Staff of hundred the company is working through the night for the project. Word 2003 expects The staffs are happy and reject the "staff is" while ' The staffs are happy" may be debatable, "A Hundreds" definitely should not be accepted Well, I guess we just can't rely on words spelling and grammar checking entirely or else we have laughable to ludicrous writing to show I won't surprised there may be debate among the ms developers what should be accepted with the wide diversity of ethnic, lingual background among them. BTW outlook express does accept "The staff is happy" but then it also accepts The staffs is happy |
#22
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
I believe that MS licence the proofing tools from an outside source. Every
once in a while, we are requested to provide any bugs with the proofing tools: these will be added to the long list. Terry "gs" wrote in message ... for English Canada in Word 2003:rejects The staff is happy but accepts Hundreds of Staff of the company is working through the night for the project. A hundred Staff of the company is working through the night for the project. A hundreds Staff of the company is working through the night for the project. Staff of the company is working through the night for the project. A Staff of hundred the company is working through the night for the project. Word 2003 expects The staffs are happy and reject the "staff is" while ' The staffs are happy" may be debatable, "A Hundreds" definitely should not be accepted Well, I guess we just can't rely on words spelling and grammar checking entirely or else we have laughable to ludicrous writing to show I won't surprised there may be debate among the ms developers what should be accepted with the wide diversity of ethnic, lingual background among them. BTW outlook express does accept "The staff is happy" but then it also accepts The staffs is happy |
#23
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
Staff is a singular noun. Staff is agreement with the verb "is". If it was a
plural noun, such as staffs, then "staffs are happy" is in agreement. I think. Gordo "Mari Broman Olsen" Mari Broman wrote in message news Here's what I see on Word 2007 Staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged] The staff are happy. [Correctly flagged] The staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged] A staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged] What's the issue? "Bill Davy" wrote: In fact, the grammar checker seems to have green twiddlyitis with the following: The staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "staff is" but see below) Staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "Staff is" or "Staffs are" Staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs"). The staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs" but see above). A staff is happy. "A staff" has twiddles (suggests "Staffs") Is it fixable? How? Word 2003 SP2. |
#24
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
Depends on where you are. In the UK, staff can be considered a collective
noun, much as corporate entities, and often is considered plural. -- Herb Tyson MS MVP Author of the Word 2007 Bible Blog: http://word2007bible.herbtyson.com Web: http://www.herbtyson.com "gordo" wrote in message ... Staff is a singular noun. Staff is agreement with the verb "is". If it was a plural noun, such as staffs, then "staffs are happy" is in agreement. I think. Gordo "Mari Broman Olsen" Mari Broman wrote in message news Here's what I see on Word 2007 Staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged] The staff are happy. [Correctly flagged] The staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged] A staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged] What's the issue? "Bill Davy" wrote: In fact, the grammar checker seems to have green twiddlyitis with the following: The staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "staff is" but see below) Staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "Staff is" or "Staffs are" Staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs"). The staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs" but see above). A staff is happy. "A staff" has twiddles (suggests "Staffs") Is it fixable? How? Word 2003 SP2. |
#25
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
Can be and often is, but I don't believe it was ever correct. I guess this
is just another case of evolving usage. -- Graham Mayor - Word MVP My web site www.gmayor.com Word MVP web site http://word.mvps.org Herb Tyson [MVP] wrote: Depends on where you are. In the UK, staff can be considered a collective noun, much as corporate entities, and often is considered plural. "gordo" wrote in message ... Staff is a singular noun. Staff is agreement with the verb "is". If it was a plural noun, such as staffs, then "staffs are happy" is in agreement. I think. Gordo "Mari Broman Olsen" Mari Broman wrote in message news Here's what I see on Word 2007 Staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged] The staff are happy. [Correctly flagged] The staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged] A staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged] What's the issue? "Bill Davy" wrote: In fact, the grammar checker seems to have green twiddlyitis with the following: The staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "staff is" but see below) Staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "Staff is" or "Staffs are" Staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs"). The staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs" but see above). A staff is happy. "A staff" has twiddles (suggests "Staffs") Is it fixable? How? Word 2003 SP2. |
#26
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
Here is some more food for thought:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nal_agreement: Formal and notional agreement In BrE, collective nouns can take either singular (formal agreement) or plural (notional agreement) verb forms, according to whether the emphasis is, respectively, on the body as a whole or on the individual members; compare a committee was appointed ... with the committee were unable to agree ...[5][6] Compare also Elvis Costello's song, Oliver's Army is here to stay / Oliver's Army are on their way. Some of these nouns, for example staff,[7] actually combine with plural verbs most of the time. In AmE, collective nouns are usually singular in construction: the committee was unable to agree ... AmE however may use plural pronouns in agreement with collective nouns: the team take their seats, rather than the team takes its seat(s). However, such a sentence would most likely be recast as the team members take their seats. The difference occurs for all nouns of multitude, both general terms such as team and company and proper nouns (for example, where a place name is used to refer to a sports team). For instance, B The Clash are a well-known band; AmE: The Clash is a well known band. B Indianapolis are the champions; AmE: Indianapolis is the champion. Proper nouns which are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE; for example, The Beatles are a well-known band; The Colts are the champions. From http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/020.html: Grammar: Traditional Rules, Word Order, Agreement, and Case ˇ± 20. collective noun Some nouns, like committee, clergy, enemy, group, family, and team, refer to a group but are singular in form. These nouns are called collective nouns. In American usage, a collective noun takes a singular verb when it refers to the collection considered as a whole, as in The family was united on this question or The enemy is suing for peace. It takes a plural verb when it refers to the members of the group considered as individuals, as in My family are always fighting among themselves or The enemy were showing up in groups of three or four to turn in their weapons. In British usage, collective nouns are more often treated as plurals: The government have not announced a new policy. The team are playing in the test matches next week. Be careful not to treat a collective noun as both singular and plural in the same construction. Thus you should say The family is determined to press its (not their) claim. 2 Collective nouns always refer to living creatures. Similar inanimate nouns, such as furniture and luggage, differ in that they cannot be counted individually. That is why you cannot buy a furniture or a luggage. These nouns are usually called mass nouns or noncount nouns. They always take a singular verb: The bedroom furniture was on sale. From http://www.bartleby.com/68/46/246.html: AGREEMENT OF SUBJECTS AND VERBS 2: COLLECTIVE NOUN PHRASES FOLLOWED BY PLURAL NOUNS Proximity (attraction), notional agreement, and logic conspire here to make the verb choice plural: A number of us are going to attend. A flock of starlings were making loud conversation. But at Conversational levels the doubts of the speaker and in Edited English the stylebookˇ¦s unwavering rule that subjects and verbs must agree in number can sometimes produce the singular: A pair of hits in the bottom of the ninth usually turns the trick. Either singular or plural is Standard in such constructions, although the plural usually seems more natural and comfortable. From http://www.bartleby.com/68/28/4128.html: NOTIONAL AGREEMENT (NOTIONAL CONCORD) is the agreement or concord of verbs with their subjects and of pronouns with their antecedent nouns on the basis of meaning rather than form. If you think of committee as one entity, then The committee has its agenda; if you think of committee as representing several people, then The committee have their agenda. Notional agreement gives us sentences like these from British English: The government are eager to compromise. Manchester United are ahead, three to nil. Americans would use is in both sentences, having different notions of the entities government and athletic team. And these from American English also illustrate: My admiration and love for her is without limit. Everybody has their own opinion of the proposal. All these are usage problems because although no one is confused about what they mean, strict grammatical agreement of plurals with plural forms and singulars with singular forms doesnˇ¦t occur. Edited English tries usually to avoid these last structures, and many a Standard-using reader will find fault with them whenever they notice them. If you saw that one (reader ˇK they), then you are probably quite able to police your own writing for agreement problems; if you missed it, you must decide whether your readers will accept a particular notional agreement without objection or whether they will insist absolutely on full grammatical concord. From http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/gramm...ve_nouns.html: Swan (Practical English Usage, New Edition, Oxford University Press, 1997) elaborates on this singular/plural usage, and disagrees about treating collective nouns as both singular and plural in the same construction: "In British English, singular words like family, team, government, which refer to groups of people, can be used with either singular or plural verbs and pronouns. This team is/are going to lose. Plural forms are common when the group is considered as a collection of people doing personal things like deciding, hoping or wanting; and in these cases we use who, not which, as a relative pronoun. Singular forms (with which as a relative pronoun) are more common when the group is seen as an impersonal unit. Compa My family have decided to move to Nottingham. They think it's a better place to live. The average British family has 3.6 members. It is smaller and richer than 50 years ago. The government, who are hoping to ease export restrictions soon, ˇK The government, which is elected by a simple majority, ˇK My firm are wonderful. They do all they can for me. My firm was founded in the 18th century. When a group noun is used with a singular determiner (e.g. a/an, each, every, this, that), singular verbs and pronouns are normal. Compa The team are full of enthusiasm. A team which is full of enthusiasm has a better chance of winning. Sometimes singular and plural forms are mixed: The group gave its first concert in June and they are already booked up for the next six months. Examples of group nouns which can be used with both singular and plural verbs in British English: bank the BBC choir class club committee England (e.g. the football team) family firm government jury ministry orchestra party public school staff team union In American English singular verbs are normally used with most of these nouns in all cases (though family can have a plural verb). Plural pronouns can be used: The team is in Detroit this weekend. They have a good chance of winning." pp. 526-527 -- Cheers Robert ------------------------------------------------------------------ On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:48:12 +0300, Graham Mayor wrote: Can be and often is, but I don't believe it was ever correct. I guess this is just another case of evolving usage. |
#27
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
Robert
That just about covers every possibility. It could be summed up as 'anything goes.' Terry Farrell "Robert" wrote in message ... Here is some more food for thought: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nal_agreement: Formal and notional agreement In BrE, collective nouns can take either singular (formal agreement) or plural (notional agreement) verb forms, according to whether the emphasis is, respectively, on the body as a whole or on the individual members; compare a committee was appointed ... with the committee were unable to agree ...[5][6] Compare also Elvis Costello's song, Oliver's Army is here to stay / Oliver's Army are on their way. Some of these nouns, for example staff,[7] actually combine with plural verbs most of the time. In AmE, collective nouns are usually singular in construction: the committee was unable to agree ... AmE however may use plural pronouns in agreement with collective nouns: the team take their seats, rather than the team takes its seat(s). However, such a sentence would most likely be recast as the team members take their seats. The difference occurs for all nouns of multitude, both general terms such as team and company and proper nouns (for example, where a place name is used to refer to a sports team). For instance, B The Clash are a well-known band; AmE: The Clash is a well known band. B Indianapolis are the champions; AmE: Indianapolis is the champion. Proper nouns which are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE; for example, The Beatles are a well-known band; The Colts are the champions. From http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/020.html: Grammar: Traditional Rules, Word Order, Agreement, and Case ˇ± 20. collective noun Some nouns, like committee, clergy, enemy, group, family, and team, refer to a group but are singular in form. These nouns are called collective nouns. In American usage, a collective noun takes a singular verb when it refers to the collection considered as a whole, as in The family was united on this question or The enemy is suing for peace. It takes a plural verb when it refers to the members of the group considered as individuals, as in My family are always fighting among themselves or The enemy were showing up in groups of three or four to turn in their weapons. In British usage, collective nouns are more often treated as plurals: The government have not announced a new policy. The team are playing in the test matches next week. Be careful not to treat a collective noun as both singular and plural in the same construction. Thus you should say The family is determined to press its (not their) claim. 2 Collective nouns always refer to living creatures. Similar inanimate nouns, such as furniture and luggage, differ in that they cannot be counted individually. That is why you cannot buy a furniture or a luggage. These nouns are usually called mass nouns or noncount nouns. They always take a singular verb: The bedroom furniture was on sale. From http://www.bartleby.com/68/46/246.html: AGREEMENT OF SUBJECTS AND VERBS 2: COLLECTIVE NOUN PHRASES FOLLOWED BY PLURAL NOUNS Proximity (attraction), notional agreement, and logic conspire here to make the verb choice plural: A number of us are going to attend. A flock of starlings were making loud conversation. But at Conversational levels the doubts of the speaker and in Edited English the stylebookˇ¦s unwavering rule that subjects and verbs must agree in number can sometimes produce the singular: A pair of hits in the bottom of the ninth usually turns the trick. Either singular or plural is Standard in such constructions, although the plural usually seems more natural and comfortable. From http://www.bartleby.com/68/28/4128.html: NOTIONAL AGREEMENT (NOTIONAL CONCORD) is the agreement or concord of verbs with their subjects and of pronouns with their antecedent nouns on the basis of meaning rather than form. If you think of committee as one entity, then The committee has its agenda; if you think of committee as representing several people, then The committee have their agenda. Notional agreement gives us sentences like these from British English: The government are eager to compromise. Manchester United are ahead, three to nil. Americans would use is in both sentences, having different notions of the entities government and athletic team. And these from American English also illustrate: My admiration and love for her is without limit. Everybody has their own opinion of the proposal. All these are usage problems because although no one is confused about what they mean, strict grammatical agreement of plurals with plural forms and singulars with singular forms doesnˇ¦t occur. Edited English tries usually to avoid these last structures, and many a Standard-using reader will find fault with them whenever they notice them. If you saw that one (reader ˇK they), then you are probably quite able to police your own writing for agreement problems; if you missed it, you must decide whether your readers will accept a particular notional agreement without objection or whether they will insist absolutely on full grammatical concord. From http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/gramm...ve_nouns.html: Swan (Practical English Usage, New Edition, Oxford University Press, 1997) elaborates on this singular/plural usage, and disagrees about treating collective nouns as both singular and plural in the same construction: "In British English, singular words like family, team, government, which refer to groups of people, can be used with either singular or plural verbs and pronouns. This team is/are going to lose. Plural forms are common when the group is considered as a collection of people doing personal things like deciding, hoping or wanting; and in these cases we use who, not which, as a relative pronoun. Singular forms (with which as a relative pronoun) are more common when the group is seen as an impersonal unit. Compa My family have decided to move to Nottingham. They think it's a better place to live. The average British family has 3.6 members. It is smaller and richer than 50 years ago. The government, who are hoping to ease export restrictions soon, ˇK The government, which is elected by a simple majority, ˇK My firm are wonderful. They do all they can for me. My firm was founded in the 18th century. When a group noun is used with a singular determiner (e.g. a/an, each, every, this, that), singular verbs and pronouns are normal. Compa The team are full of enthusiasm. A team which is full of enthusiasm has a better chance of winning. Sometimes singular and plural forms are mixed: The group gave its first concert in June and they are already booked up for the next six months. Examples of group nouns which can be used with both singular and plural verbs in British English: bank the BBC choir class club committee England (e.g. the football team) family firm government jury ministry orchestra party public school staff team union In American English singular verbs are normally used with most of these nouns in all cases (though family can have a plural verb). Plural pronouns can be used: The team is in Detroit this weekend. They have a good chance of winning." pp. 526-527 -- Cheers Robert ------------------------------------------------------------------ On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:48:12 +0300, Graham Mayor wrote: Can be and often is, but I don't believe it was ever correct. I guess this is just another case of evolving usage. |
#28
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
Terry
Contrary to what Graham seems to believe, usage evolves by its very nature, historically, and geographically. And determining what is the current usage in a given area requires deep statistical and linguistical analysis, which few people are able or willing to do. In any case who would bother to follow their recommendations? Robert ------------------------------------------------------------------- On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:00:28 +0100, Terry Farrell wrote: Robert That just about covers every possibility. It could be summed up as 'anything goes.' Terry Farrell |
#29
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
Language evolves - what in my reply would suggest that I believed something
different? In the UK, very little attention appears to be paid to the teaching of English grammar, which was not the case 50 years ago when I was at school. Then there would have been less confusion. Now we have graduates who cannot use the mother tongue with any degree of competence. -- Graham Mayor - Word MVP My web site www.gmayor.com Word MVP web site http://word.mvps.org Robert wrote: Terry Contrary to what Graham seems to believe, usage evolves by its very nature, historically, and geographically. And determining what is the current usage in a given area requires deep statistical and linguistical analysis, which few people are able or willing to do. In any case who would bother to follow their recommendations? Robert ------------------------------------------------------------------- On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:00:28 +0100, Terry Farrell wrote: Robert That just about covers every possibility. It could be summed up as 'anything goes.' Terry Farrell |
#30
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
Just to get back to basics. My problem is that my version of Word (in UK
English) suggests alternatives for both: The staff is happy. The staff are happy. That is not a matter of compatibility or usage. It is broken. How can a user stop it (without disabling the rule altogether)? And for my sins, I was dragged through Latin but the teacher decided one of us should give up, so I did. Indeed, my matriculation year was the first where a classical language was not required. There was a general fear amongst the dons that they were admitting the barbarians. Bill "Graham Mayor" wrote in message ... Language evolves - what in my reply would suggest that I believed something different? In the UK, very little attention appears to be paid to the teaching of English grammar, which was not the case 50 years ago when I was at school. Then there would have been less confusion. Now we have graduates who cannot use the mother tongue with any degree of competence. -- Graham Mayor - Word MVP My web site www.gmayor.com Word MVP web site http://word.mvps.org Robert wrote: Terry Contrary to what Graham seems to believe, usage evolves by its very nature, historically, and geographically. And determining what is the current usage in a given area requires deep statistical and linguistical analysis, which few people are able or willing to do. In any case who would bother to follow their recommendations? Robert ------------------------------------------------------------------- On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:00:28 +0100, Terry Farrell wrote: Robert That just about covers every possibility. It could be summed up as 'anything goes.' Terry Farrell |
#31
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
Bill
Understood. That is exactly what all UK users are getting. A conflict where both are reported as errors. Terry "Bill Davy" wrote in message ... Just to get back to basics. My problem is that my version of Word (in UK English) suggests alternatives for both: The staff is happy. The staff are happy. That is not a matter of compatibility or usage. It is broken. How can a user stop it (without disabling the rule altogether)? And for my sins, I was dragged through Latin but the teacher decided one of us should give up, so I did. Indeed, my matriculation year was the first where a classical language was not required. There was a general fear amongst the dons that they were admitting the barbarians. Bill "Graham Mayor" wrote in message ... Language evolves - what in my reply would suggest that I believed something different? In the UK, very little attention appears to be paid to the teaching of English grammar, which was not the case 50 years ago when I was at school. Then there would have been less confusion. Now we have graduates who cannot use the mother tongue with any degree of competence. -- Graham Mayor - Word MVP My web site www.gmayor.com Word MVP web site http://word.mvps.org Robert wrote: Terry Contrary to what Graham seems to believe, usage evolves by its very nature, historically, and geographically. And determining what is the current usage in a given area requires deep statistical and linguistical analysis, which few people are able or willing to do. In any case who would bother to follow their recommendations? Robert ------------------------------------------------------------------- On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:00:28 +0100, Terry Farrell wrote: Robert That just about covers every possibility. It could be summed up as 'anything goes.' Terry Farrell |
#32
Posted to microsoft.public.word.newusers,microsoft.public.word.spelling.grammar
|
|||
|
|||
Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
Word 2000 seems to handle it correctly, though.
Considering the other posts in this thread, I think I have to take that back... My test was a simple one, for US English text, and I was happily (?) unaware of the complex reality. :-) -- Stefan Blom Microsoft Word MVP "Stefan Blom" wrote: Word 2000 seems to handle it correctly, though. -- Stefan Blom Microsoft Word MVP "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... Bill Not fixable. It is still present in W2007 too. Staff (and crowd) are collective nouns, so 'the staff is' and 'the crowd is' are both correct. The grammar checker happily accepts 'is or are' with crowd - but with staff, the checker accepts neither as correct. Both the handling of crowd and staff are inconsistent and daft. -- Terry Farrell - MS Word MVP "Bill Davy" wrote in message ... In fact, the grammar checker seems to have green twiddlyitis with the following: The staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "staff is" but see below) Staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "Staff is" or "Staffs are" Staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs"). The staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs" but see above). A staff is happy. "A staff" has twiddles (suggests "Staffs") Is it fixable? How? Word 2003 SP2. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
What does "char" "char1" "char2" mean in styles in Word? | Microsoft Word Help | |||
Fix Word's handling of collective nouns "staff" and "crowd" | Microsoft Word Help | |||
The "Symbol" under "Insert" disappeared and replaced by "Number" | Microsoft Word Help | |||
HAPPY NEW YEAR !!! | Microsoft Word Help | |||
happy and sad wingdings | Microsoft Word Help |