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

My understanding is that "they" etc is ok if the noun acts as a 'collective'
noun. Therefore, "Chrysler are" is fine because it refers to a collection
of people. "The corporation is" is also ok because the corporation is a
single entity. The use of "it" does not have definite overtones of
'inanimatedness'. It just means no gender, so the corporation can have its
acccounts audited.

I think the key is to decide on one mode in a paragraph or article and stick
with it.

Where "they" for singular has crept in through usage -- at least in the
UK -- is the 'politically correct' way of dealing with a person of
undetermined gender. This is a way of avoiding "he" when it could be he or
she. In other languages this may be unnecessary since the word "person"
itself has gender. In German for example it is feminine. So in a German
sentence one would speak of a person who has money in her pocket, whether it
is a woman or a man.

OT... :-)
DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
[...]

> 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')

Maybe Professor Higgins?

In 'Ertford (1), 'Ereford and 'Ampshire 'urricanes 'ardly hever 'appen.

(1) Pronounced as in 'Artford.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Joe Pfeiffer" > wrote in message
...
[...]
>
> I'm not familiar with "Higgins"...

O-o-h-h - you mean Enry Iggins.

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


Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> Maybe Professor Higgins?
>
> In 'Ertford (1), 'Ereford and 'Ampshire 'urricanes 'ardly hever 'appen.
>
> (1) Pronounced as in 'Artford.
>
> DAS
>
> To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
> ---
> "Joe Pfeiffer" > wrote in message
> ...
> [...]
>> I'm not familiar with "Higgins"...
>
>

On Jan 1, 10:22*pm, Joe Pfeiffer > wrote:
s, 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"...

errr...the OP, he who declared that the "Chrysler blog blew up in
their face"...or should that be "faces". 8)

On Jan 2, 7:16*am, "Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote:
> My understanding is that "they" etc is ok if the noun acts as a 'collective'
> noun. *Therefore, "Chrysler are" is fine because it refers to a collection
> of people. *"The corporation is" is also ok because the corporation is a
> single entity. *The use of "it" does not have definite overtones of
> 'inanimatedness'. *It just means no gender, so the corporation can have its
> acccounts audited.
>
> I think the key is to decide on one mode in a paragraph or article and stick
> with it.

Agree with all of the above, actually. It was my perverse side that
led me to mix 'em.
>
> Where "they" for singular has crept in through usage -- at least in the
> UK -- is the 'politically correct' way of dealing with a person of
> undetermined gender. *This is a way of avoiding "he" when it could be he or
> she. *In other languages this may be unnecessary since the word "person"
> itself has gender. *In German for example it is feminine. *So in a German
> sentence one would speak of a person who has money in her pocket, whether it
> is a woman or a man.

Bingo! It used to be that the singular pronoun "he" was the default
for the condition where the gender was indeterminate. Now, we have to
have the plural "their" because folks can't say "he" without guilt.

.....drives me nuts, but not as much as the talking heads on the news
programs on television who, when asked a question, begin with "I
mean...".

On Jan 1, 9:40*pm, Bill Putney > wrote:



> 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.

As Rush Limbaugh would say, the media is responsible for all
this. )

> 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.
>
Huh? Maybe it only matters when the door is close to being
closed.........no....
....maybe it is an elliptical sentence with the words missing having to
do with the door's (note the possessive) being (subjunctive) in
a.....closed state....no..
.....that door has been closed...........what's yours?

Leave me alone, Bill. I don't have time for all this...I really only
want to read Jim 'iggins (' ) clippings....that's a full time job.

Besides, I have to go figure out which side is the bad wheel bearing.

In article
>,
cavedweller > wrote:

> Besides, I have to go figure out which side is the bad wheel bearing.

You trying to draw me into this?

Ain't gonna work buddy...

On Jan 2, 10:22*am, cavedweller > wrote:
> closed.........no....
> ...maybe it is an elliptical sentence with the words missing having to
> do with the door's (note the possessive) being (subjunctive)

Note brain fart....gerund.

On Jan 2, 11:15*am, aarcuda69062 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> *cavedweller > wrote:
> > Besides, I have to go figure out which side is the bad wheel bearing.
>
> You trying to draw me into this?
>
> Ain't gonna work buddy...

Naw, Bill will know...his memory is lots better than mine.

cavedweller wrote:
> On Jan 2, 11:15 am, aarcuda69062 > wrote:
>> In article
>> >,
>>
>> cavedweller > wrote:
>>> Besides, I have to go figure out which side is the bad wheel bearing.
>> You trying to draw me into this?
>>
>> Ain't gonna work buddy...
>
> Naw, Bill will know...his memory is lots better than mine.

LOL! Noise turning off or on when you turn to a particular side doesn't
mean anything. I used to adamantly argue that it did, but I've had to
change my thinking on that due to reality hitting me in the face over
the last couple of years.

Basically, on most cars they design (it designs?) the offset of the
factory wheels to put the plane of the center of pressure (pavement to
tread) in the center plane of the bearing, so it could go either way.
Only when those two planes are not close to congruent is there any
reason to expect to be able to tell which bearing is bad by which
direction you turn in to make the bearing louder.

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