The words....... have and were

[CorCentral]

I've been seeing alot of people typing like this as of late. The misused word usually follows a company name though. My punctuation are not perfect, but damn :laugh:

Examples:
AMD "were" King of the hill for the last two years.
Intel "have" finally started getting their act together.
Petroglyph "have" released the first patch for Forces of Corruption.


Are schools just letting kids slide through without learning basic word placement?

 

[HaxorNubcake]

it have nothing to do with basic word placement...

 

[StevenYoo]

me is the speaks good english goodly like.

 

[shortylickens]

Irregardless, there not using te werdz correct and needs to be spanked.

 

[olds]

alot is not a word. Do we really need to start in on you?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: CorCentral
I've been seeing alot of people typing like this as of late. The misused word usually follows a company name though. My punctuation are not perfect, but damn :laugh:

Examples:
AMD "were" King of the hill for the last two years.
Intel "have" finally started getting their act together.
Petroglyph "have" released the first patch for Forces of Corruption.


Are schools just letting kids slide through without learning basic word placement?

should be was, has, has, respectively. collective nouns FTW

 

[nycxandy]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
alot is not a word. Do we really need to start in on you?

Bingo!

Originally posted by: CorCentral
I've been seeing alot of people typing like this as of late. The misused word usually follows a company name though. My punctuation is not perfect, but damn :laugh:

Not to mention this snafu.

 

[arrfep]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: CorCentral
I've been seeing alot of people typing like this as of late. The misused word usually follows a company name though. My punctuation are not perfect, but damn :laugh:

Examples:
AMD "were" King of the hill for the last two years.
Intel "have" finally started getting their act together.
Petroglyph "have" released the first patch for Forces of Corruption.


Are schools just letting kids slide through without learning basic word placement?

should be was, has, has, respectively. collective nouns FTW

Well, I may be an English Major drop-out, but I belive that the OP did in fact use the proper helping verbs. You mention collective nouns but then use the wrong verbs.
Think of it this way. Use the plural pronoun instead of the names "AMD" "Intel" or "Petroglyph." You would use "they" in place of the proper names if you were having a conversation about any of those companies, right?

So you would get:
They"were" King of the hill for the last two years.
They"have" finally started getting their act together.
They"have" released the first patch for Forces of Corruption.

And now it makes sense, right? I know it sounds wrong when you are using the proper name, but if you think about it for a second, you get it. The companies are collectives, they are plural nouns.

Okay. So I'm pretty sure that's right. Any other English majors in the house?

 

[enwar3]

Um.. actually a company is singular so you would refer to it as "it."

 

[Kadarin]

American society is loosing the War on Illiteracy. It's ludacris.

 

[Whisper]

Originally posted by: arrfep

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: CorCentral
I've been seeing alot of people typing like this as of late. The misused word usually follows a company name though. My punctuation are not perfect, but damn :laugh:

Examples:
AMD "were" King of the hill for the last two years.
Intel "have" finally started getting their act together.
Petroglyph "have" released the first patch for Forces of Corruption.


Are schools just letting kids slide through without learning basic word placement?

should be was, has, has, respectively. collective nouns FTW

Well, I may be an English Major drop-out, but I belive that the OP did in fact use the proper helping verbs. You mention collective nouns but then use the wrong verbs.
Think of it this way. Use the plural pronoun instead of the names "AMD" "Intel" or "Petroglyph." You would use "they" in place of the proper names if you were having a conversation about any of those companies, right?

So you would get:
They"were" King of the hill for the last two years.
They"have" finally started getting their act together.
They"have" released the first patch for Forces of Corruption.

And now it makes sense, right? I know it sounds wrong when you are using the proper name, but if you think about it for a second, you get it. The companies are collectives, they are plural nouns.

Okay. So I'm pretty sure that's right. Any other English majors in the house?

I'm pretty sure that when referring collectively to a company by its name, it's considered singular. Therefore, you'd have "AMD was..." and the like.

 

[allisolm]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
alot is not a word. Do we really need to start in on you?

If we did start in on him, there's always " My punctuation are not perfect."

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: allisolm

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
alot is not a word. Do we really need to start in on you?

If we did stert in on him, there's always " My punctuation are not perfect."

Also, he failed to use a period or exclamation point at the end of that sentence.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: CorCentral



Are schools just letting kids slide through without learning basic word placement?

And the poor apostrophe doesn't get the attention it should, either.

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: arrfep

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: CorCentral
I've been seeing alot of people typing like this as of late. The misused word usually follows a company name though. My punctuation are not perfect, but damn :laugh:

Examples:
AMD "were" King of the hill for the last two years.
Intel "have" finally started getting their act together.
Petroglyph "have" released the first patch for Forces of Corruption.


Are schools just letting kids slide through without learning basic word placement?

should be was, has, has, respectively. collective nouns FTW

Well, I may be an English Major drop-out, but I belive that the OP did in fact use the proper helping verbs. You mention collective nouns but then use the wrong verbs.
Think of it this way. Use the plural pronoun instead of the names "AMD" "Intel" or "Petroglyph." You would use "they" in place of the proper names if you were having a conversation about any of those companies, right?

So you would get:
They"were" King of the hill for the last two years.
They"have" finally started getting their act together.
They"have" released the first patch for Forces of Corruption.

And now it makes sense, right? I know it sounds wrong when you are using the proper name, but if you think about it for a second, you get it. The companies are collectives, they are plural nouns.

Okay. So I'm pretty sure that's right. Any other English majors in the house?

I'm pretty sure that when referring collectively to a company by its name, it's considered singular. Therefore, you'd have "AMD was..." and the like.

My understanding is that it's a Brit. thing. Or at least non-US.

God, I :heart: English. It's such a clusterf*ck, but that's why I love it.

 

[kranky]

Originally posted by: bersl2My understanding is that it's a Brit. thing. Or at least non-US.

I think you're right. First time I heard that usage was in an old Monty Python skit, where they were talking about soccer, and a guy said "Coventry City have never won the FA Cup."

 

[allisolm]

NM

 

[rikadik]

Originally posted by: CorCentral
I've been seeing alot of people typing like this as of late. The misused word usually follows a company name though. My punctuation are not perfect, but damn :laugh:

Examples:
AMD "were" King of the hill for the last two years.
Intel "have" finally started getting their act together.
Petroglyph "have" released the first patch for Forces of Corruption.


Are schools just letting kids slide through without learning basic word placement?

This is a confused post. None of your examples are incorrect. Whether a collective noun such as a company name or sports team or so on is given singular or plurual treatment depends on the meaning of what is being said. It depends if you're referring to a group of people of a singular entity.

For example:

The jury has delivered its verdict.
In this case 'the jury' is treated as a single entity.

The jury have taken their seats.
In this case 'the jury' is an expression to refer to a group of people. You wouldn't say "they has taken its seats" would you?

The same goes for your examples. "Intel have finally started getting their act together" is referring to the people at Intel. It makes perfect sense and is correct. It isn't relevant whether it would make more sense to refer to the company singularly, the point is that the grammar is correct.

/thread.

 

[amol]

Originally posted by: CorCentral
I've been seeing alot of people typing like this as of late. The misused word usually follows a company name though. My punctuation are not perfect, but damn :laugh:

As many have pointed out, it is "a lot" and not "alot." And punctuation should be followed by "is."

Examples:
AMD "were" King of the hill for the last two years.
Intel "have" finally started getting their act together.
Petroglyph "have" released the first patch for Forces of Corruption.


Are schools just letting kids slide through without learning basic word placement?

In the parts of the world which follow UK/British English, groups are often referred to as a collection of entities. The basis for this is that companies such as AMD are comprised of many people.

In American English, AMD would be referred to as a singular entity, since it is one company.

Po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe.