Chrysler “Thank You America” Blog Blows Up in Their Face

Chrysler “Thank You America” Blog Blows Up in Their Face
http://blog.chryslerllc.com/blog.do?id=564&p=entry


--
Civis Romanus Sum

On Jan 1, 2:51*pm, Jim Higgins > wrote:
> Chrysler “Thank You America” Blog Blows Up in Their Facehttp://blog.chryslerllc.com/blog.do?id=564&p=entry
>
> --
> Civis Romanus Sum

You must be ecstatic! (Shouldn't it be "its" face?)

cavedweller wrote:
> On Jan 1, 2:51 pm, Jim Higgins > wrote:
>> Chrysler “Thank You America” Blog Blows Up in Their Facehttp://blog.chryslerllc.com/blog.do?id=564&p=entry
>>
>> --
>> Civis Romanus Sum
>
> You must be ecstatic! (Shouldn't it be "its" face?)

"It" implies an inanimate object "their" encompasses the whole of
Chrysler. I am *not* pleased that my tax money is stolen for the
benefit of GM and Chrysler, Pete & Repeat that should have gone into
bankruptcy. They will go into bankruptcy as their market share drops
and more folks buy their cars from the other made in America
manufacturers-Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc. Detroit only has itself to
blame-as anyone can read from the blog comments.

--
Civis Romanus Sum

On Jan 1, 5:56*pm, Jim Higgins > wrote:

>
> > You must be ecstatic! *(Shouldn't it be "its" face?)
>
> "It" implies an inanimate object "their" encompasses the whole of
> Chrysler. *

Well, "it" is a corporation.

I am *not* pleased that my tax money is stolen for the
> benefit of GM and Chrysler, Pete & Repeat that should have gone into
> bankruptcy. *They will go into bankruptcy as their market share drops
> and more folks buy their cars from the other made in America
> manufacturers-Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc. *Detroit only has itself to
> blame-as anyone can read from the blog comments.


Just to antagonize: http://www.autoextremist.com/

cavedweller > writes:

> On Jan 1, 2:51Â*pm, Jim Higgins > wrote:
>> Chrysler “Thank You America� Blog Blows Up in Their Facehttp://blog.chryslerllc.com/blog.do?id=564&p=entry
>
> You must be ecstatic! (Shouldn't it be "its" face?)

There's a lot of variation in whether a company is referred to in the
singular (taking it as a single entity), or in the plural (taking it
as all the people involved with it). Generally, and with many
exceptions, Americans will use the singular while the English use the
plural.

cavedweller wrote:
> On Jan 1, 5:56 pm, Jim Higgins > wrote:
>
>>> You must be ecstatic! (Shouldn't it be "its" face?)
>> "It" implies an inanimate object "their" encompasses the whole of
>> Chrysler.
>
> Well, "it" is a corporation.

"Their" is OK on two counts:
(1) It is acceptable to use "their" in a singular context (one of many
sources: http://www.languagehat.com/archives/000421.php)
(2) Look up "collective noun" and "collective pronoun".

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/they.html

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

On Jan 1, 7:48*pm, Bill Putney > wrote:
> cavedweller wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 5:56 pm, Jim Higgins > wrote:
>
> >>> You must be ecstatic! *(Shouldn't it be "its" face?)
> >> "It" implies an inanimate object "their" encompasses the whole of
> >> Chrysler. *
>
> > Well, "it" is a corporation.
>
> "Their" is OK on two counts:
> (1) It is acceptable to use "their" in a singular context (one of many
> sources:http://www.languagehat.com/archives/000421.php)
> (2) Look up "collective noun" and "collective pronoun".
>
> http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/they.html

Bill, I hear what you're saying, and have been through that lots of
times. The way I used to do it was to alternate...saying, for
instance, "Chrysler is.." and then in the next paragraph, "they..."
Drove most folks, and me, crazy.

I guess everyone is entitled to their (shudder) opinion.

On Jan 1, 7:36*pm, Joe Pfeiffer > wrote:


> There's a lot of variation in whether a company is referred to in the
> singular (taking it as a single entity), or in the plural (taking it
> as all the people involved with it). *Generally, and with many
> exceptions, Americans will use the singular while the English use the
> plural.

See my answer to Bill. On the basis of your explanation, what would
that make Higgins?

cavedweller wrote:
> On Jan 1, 7:48 pm, Bill Putney > wrote:
>> cavedweller wrote:
>>> On Jan 1, 5:56 pm, Jim Higgins > wrote:
>>>>> You must be ecstatic! (Shouldn't it be "its" face?)
>>>> "It" implies an inanimate object "their" encompasses the whole of
>>>> Chrysler.
>>> Well, "it" is a corporation.
>> "Their" is OK on two counts:
>> (1) It is acceptable to use "their" in a singular context (one of many
>> sources:http://www.languagehat.com/archives/000421.php)
>> (2) Look up "collective noun" and "collective pronoun".
>>
>> http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/they.html
>
> Bill, I hear what you're saying, and have been through that lots of
> times. The way I used to do it was to alternate...saying, for
> instance, "Chrysler is.." and then in the next paragraph, "they..."
> Drove most folks, and me, crazy.
>
> I guess everyone is entitled to their (shudder) opinion.

Right or wrong, to my ears, to follow "Chrysler is..." with "they..."
sounds more natural/less awkward than to say "it...", referring to
Chrysler. Again, "they" and "their" can be used for singular (probably
through usage), though it seems "technically" wrong. It would also
sound weird to say "Chrysler are...". though that could technically be
correct. "The data is ready." - technically incorrect, but acceptable.
"The data are ready" - technically correct, but sounds weird in casual
speech.

So how come we say "that door is closed" (not "that door is close"), but
"that door is open" (not "that door is opened")? I think I know why,
but would be interested in your guess or answer.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

cavedweller > writes:

> On Jan 1, 7:36*pm, Joe Pfeiffer > wrote:
>
>
>> There's a lot of variation in whether a company is referred to in the
>> singular (taking it as a single entity), or in the plural (taking it
>> as all the people involved with it). *Generally, and with many
>> exceptions, Americans will use the singular while the English use the
>> plural.
>
> See my answer to Bill. On the basis of your explanation, what would
> that make Higgins?

I'm not familiar with "Higgins"...