Bolton v Baggies - Match thread

[Eloy]

Spain is singular! Hence, Spain is a lovely country! Hence, Spain is a good football team! IS, IS, IS!

Why you gotta be all up in my grill about his?!?

[thebish]

Spain is singular! Hence, Spain is a lovely country! Hence, Spain is a good football team! IS, IS, IS!

Why you gotta be all up in my grill about his?!?

so would you say "Birmingham is the League Cup champion"?

[officer_dibble]

Only to wind up an arsenal fan, get a room!

Important we dont lose. Klasnic dropping off and linking up may be the key. Davies not having the legs an all. main thinfs are the nrc/muamba axis.and no petrov. (another) big one this, stringing two results together being elusive an all...

[Eloy]

Spain is singular! Hence, Spain is a lovely country! Hence, Spain is a good football team! IS, IS, IS!

Why you gotta be all up in my grill about his?!?

so would you say "Birmingham is the League Cup champion"?

No, because I'm not a fan of Birmingham!

But yes, I think that is more correct than saying "Birmingham ARE..."

Don't we have any English majors here to help us out?

[Eloy]

Only to wind up an arsenal fan, get a room!

Important we dont lose. Klasnic dropping off and linking up may be the key. Davies not having the legs an all. main thinfs are the nrc/muamba axis.and no petrov. (another) big one this, stringing two results together being elusive an all...

Don't like the idea of Klasnic not as far up front as possible...

[Prufrock]

Stoke ARE a better team is how Brits would say it (unless they are wrong!)

Spain are the World Cup holders.... (not "is")

That is SO grammatically incorrect.

Hi, me again. Capt. Fun. It isn't grammatically incorrect. Singular collective nouns can take plural verbs, normally where it is a group of people. It is called 'metonymic merging' of grammatical number. I shit you not. It is 'Stoke are a good team' because what is 'good' is the collective ability of a set of individuals. 'The players, together, as a team, are good', becomes 'Stoke are good'.

[officer_dibble]

Contradicted myself as well...meant to type klasnic playing off the front man may be a good idea. his link up play is good. but yeah hes a goal grabber first and foremost

[Eloy]

Stoke ARE a better team is how Brits would say it (unless they are wrong!)

Spain are the World Cup holders.... (not "is")

That is SO grammatically incorrect.

Hi, me again. Capt. Fun. It isn't grammatically incorrect. Singular collective nouns can take plural verbs, normally where it is a group of people. It is called 'metonymic merging' of grammatical number. I shit you not. It is 'Stoke are a good team' because what is 'good' is the collective ability of a set of individuals. 'The players, together, as a team, are good', becomes 'Stoke are good'.

You just blew my mind. If you're correct, I have about 100 apologies to make to the people whom I've ridiculed over the years.

Are you saying that BOTH versions are correct? You can say STOKE IS and STOKE ARE? And both would be correct?

[Eloy]

Contradicted myself as well...meant to type klasnic playing off the front man may be a good idea. his link up play is good. but yeah hes a goal grabber first and foremost

hear hear!

[Prufrock]

I hesitate to say American English is wrong (others wouldn't). Americans would always say 'Stoke is a good team', however, in proper English, it would almost always be 'Stoke are'. There is an argument that grammatically it should be 'Stoke was the last fixture', not 'Stoke were the last fixture' because you don't then mean the collection of individuals, you mean the team itself. What I would say for sure is that anybody saying 'Stoke are a good side' is not grammatically wrong, even if they are factually. Boom.

[Eloy]

I hesitate to say American English is wrong (others wouldn't). Americans would always say 'Stoke is a good team', however, in proper English, it would almost always be 'Stoke are'. There is an argument that grammatically it should be 'Stoke was the last fixture', not 'Stoke were the last fixture' because you don't then mean the collection of individuals, you mean the team itself. What I would say for sure is that anybody saying 'Stoke are a good side' is not grammatically wrong, even if they are factually. Boom.

Ah, you are as knowledgeable a poster as you are witty!

However, the reason I'm find this so hard to swallow is because I feel it's like a slippery slope... If we can say "Stoke are" just because it consists of individuals, why not say "This office are a hardworking bunch of people!" The office consists of people and if we're talking about a group of individuals working there, we could say (using the same logic applied to a football team), "This office are..."

You see my problem! This conversation would be delightful if it weren't otherwise maddening!

[Prufrock]

If by 'office' you actually meant the collection of people 'This office are a hardworking bunch of people' would be perfectly fine in English. That actually sounds more natural to me, and I guess, most English speakers. I think it is one of those cross-Atlantic things, I only just realised you were Canadian, so it probably sounds weird to you, but it sounds unnatural to English speakers to say 'Stoke is a good side', and we certainly aren't 'wrong' thank you very much .

[Eloy]

If by 'office' you actually meant the collection of people 'This office are a hardworking bunch of people' would be perfectly fine in English. That actually sounds more natural to me, and I guess, most English speakers. I think it is one of those cross-Atlantic things, I only just realised you were Canadian, so it probably sounds weird to you, but it sounds unnatural to English speakers to say 'Stoke is a good side', and we certainly aren't 'wrong' thank you very much .

Sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever to me!!!

[Sponge]

I hesitate to say American English is wrong (others wouldn't). Americans would always say 'Stoke is a good team', however, in proper English, it would almost always be 'Stoke are'. There is an argument that grammatically it should be 'Stoke was the last fixture', not 'Stoke were the last fixture' because you don't then mean the collection of individuals, you mean the team itself. What I would say for sure is that anybody saying 'Stoke are a good side' is not grammatically wrong, even if they are factually. Boom.

Ah, you are as knowledgeable a poster as you are witty!

However, the reason I'm find this so hard to swallow is because I feel it's like a slippery slope... If we can say "Stoke are" just because it consists of individuals, why not say "This office are a hardworking bunch of people!" The office consists of people and if we're talking about a group of individuals working there, we could say (using the same logic applied to a football team), "This office are..."

You see my problem! This conversation would be delightful if it weren't otherwise maddening!

Well that's just a shit sentence. "The people in this office are a hardworking bunch."

[Eloy]

I hesitate to say American English is wrong (others wouldn't). Americans would always say 'Stoke is a good team', however, in proper English, it would almost always be 'Stoke are'. There is an argument that grammatically it should be 'Stoke was the last fixture', not 'Stoke were the last fixture' because you don't then mean the collection of individuals, you mean the team itself. What I would say for sure is that anybody saying 'Stoke are a good side' is not grammatically wrong, even if they are factually. Boom.

Ah, you are as knowledgeable a poster as you are witty!

However, the reason I'm find this so hard to swallow is because I feel it's like a slippery slope... If we can say "Stoke are" just because it consists of individuals, why not say "This office are a hardworking bunch of people!" The office consists of people and if we're talking about a group of individuals working there, we could say (using the same logic applied to a football team), "This office are..."

You see my problem! This conversation would be delightful if it weren't otherwise maddening!

Well that's just a shit sentence. "The people in this office are a hardworking bunch."

You're missing the point!

This is so maddening...

[Prufrock]

If by 'office' you actually meant the collection of people 'This office are a hardworking bunch of people' would be perfectly fine in English. That actually sounds more natural to me, and I guess, most English speakers. I think it is one of those cross-Atlantic things, I only just realised you were Canadian, so it probably sounds weird to you, but it sounds unnatural to English speakers to say 'Stoke is a good side', and we certainly aren't 'wrong' thank you very much .

Sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever to me!!!

It depends how you are using the word 'office'. If you are the head of a company with (say) a London office, a Manchester office, and a Bolton office, and you wanted to compare them on the basis of the work of the individuals who make up that office, you would, correctly in English, say 'The Bolton office are the most financially responsible'. However, if you were talking about the office as a entity itself, you might say 'The Bolton office is the most financially responsible'. To an English speaker, those two things mean very slightly different things, and both are grammatically correct. The first is basically just a shortcut for '(the people who make up) the Bolton office are the most financially responsible', which is grammatically correct, due to good old.........metonymic shift of the grammatical number. There's a song there.

[Eloy]

If by 'office' you actually meant the collection of people 'This office are a hardworking bunch of people' would be perfectly fine in English. That actually sounds more natural to me, and I guess, most English speakers. I think it is one of those cross-Atlantic things, I only just realised you were Canadian, so it probably sounds weird to you, but it sounds unnatural to English speakers to say 'Stoke is a good side', and we certainly aren't 'wrong' thank you very much .

Sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever to me!!!

It depends how you are using the word 'office'. If you are the head of a company with (say) a London office, a Manchester office, and a Bolton office, and you wanted to compare them on the basis of the work of the individuals who make up that office, you would, correctly in English, say 'The Bolton office are the most financially responsible'. However, if you were talking about the office as a entity itself, you might say 'The Bolton office is the most financially responsible'. To an English speaker, those two things mean very slightly different things, and both are grammatically correct. The first is basically just a shortcut for '(the people who make up) the Bolton office are the most financially responsible', which is grammatically correct, due to good old.........metonymic shift of the grammatical number. There's a song there.

Usually when one takes shortcuts one does so at the expense of grammatical accuracy. Hence, until an English professor tells me that saying "This office are financially responsible" is correct, I will stubbornly and strongly disagree with you!

[Prufrock]

If by 'office' you actually meant the collection of people 'This office are a hardworking bunch of people' would be perfectly fine in English. That actually sounds more natural to me, and I guess, most English speakers. I think it is one of those cross-Atlantic things, I only just realised you were Canadian, so it probably sounds weird to you, but it sounds unnatural to English speakers to say 'Stoke is a good side', and we certainly aren't 'wrong' thank you very much .

Sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever to me!!!

It depends how you are using the word 'office'. If you are the head of a company with (say) a London office, a Manchester office, and a Bolton office, and you wanted to compare them on the basis of the work of the individuals who make up that office, you would, correctly in English, say 'The Bolton office are the most financially responsible'. However, if you were talking about the office as a entity itself, you might say 'The Bolton office is the most financially responsible'. To an English speaker, those two things mean very slightly different things, and both are grammatically correct. The first is basically just a shortcut for '(the people who make up) the Bolton office are the most financially responsible', which is grammatically correct, due to good old.........metonymic shift of the grammatical number. There's a song there.

Usually when one takes shortcuts one does so at the expense of grammatical accuracy. Hence, until an English professor tells me that saying "This office are financially responsible" is correct, I will stubbornly and strongly disagree with you!

"There's" is a shortcut and grammatically accurate. Plenty of shortcuts are grammatically accurate. The entire concept of collective nouns is a shortcut. The word 'flock' is merely shortcut for 'that group of sheep'. Look it up if you want, 'metonymic shift' exists fairly uncontroversially. 'Stoke are a good side' is grammatically correct in English.

[Eloy]

If by 'office' you actually meant the collection of people 'This office are a hardworking bunch of people' would be perfectly fine in English. That actually sounds more natural to me, and I guess, most English speakers. I think it is one of those cross-Atlantic things, I only just realised you were Canadian, so it probably sounds weird to you, but it sounds unnatural to English speakers to say 'Stoke is a good side', and we certainly aren't 'wrong' thank you very much .

Sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever to me!!!

It depends how you are using the word 'office'. If you are the head of a company with (say) a London office, a Manchester office, and a Bolton office, and you wanted to compare them on the basis of the work of the individuals who make up that office, you would, correctly in English, say 'The Bolton office are the most financially responsible'. However, if you were talking about the office as a entity itself, you might say 'The Bolton office is the most financially responsible'. To an English speaker, those two things mean very slightly different things, and both are grammatically correct. The first is basically just a shortcut for '(the people who make up) the Bolton office are the most financially responsible', which is grammatically correct, due to good old.........metonymic shift of the grammatical number. There's a song there.

Usually when one takes shortcuts one does so at the expense of grammatical accuracy. Hence, until an English professor tells me that saying "This office are financially responsible" is correct, I will stubbornly and strongly disagree with you!

"There's" is a shortcut and grammatically accurate. Plenty of shortcuts are grammatically accurate. The entire concept of collective nouns is a shortcut. The word 'flock' is merely shortcut for 'that group of sheep'. Look it up if you want, 'metonymic shift' exists fairly uncontroversially. 'Stoke are a good side' is grammatically correct in English.

Yeah, but you wouldn't say "This flock are good." You'd say "This flock IS good."

This is so aggravating

[Wandering Willy]

Stoke are shit.

How's that?