Group:  Microsoft Word » microsoft.public.word.newusers
Thread: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"

Geek News

Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"Bill Davy" <Bill[ at ]SynectixLtd.com> 6/13/2007 8:23:31 AM
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.




Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"Terry Farrell" <terryfarrell[ at ]msn.com> 6/13/2007 9:38:49 AM
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" <Bill[ at ]SynectixLtd.com> wrote in message
news:u9NeKQZrHHA.3276[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text]
> 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.
>
>
>
>

Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"Stefan Blom" <no.spam[ at ]please.xyz> 6/13/2007 10:18:01 AM
Word 2000 seems to handle it correctly, though.

--
Stefan Blom
Microsoft Word MVP


"Terry Farrell" wrote in message
news:62067487-1DFE-49F6-A425-1C40E4F4E572[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text]
> 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" <Bill[ at ]SynectixLtd.com> wrote in message
> news:u9NeKQZrHHA.3276[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>



Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"Bill Davy" <Bill[ at ]SynectixLtd.com> 6/13/2007 10:47:50 AM
That's progress for you, then :-(
Bill

"Stefan Blom" <no.spam[ at ]please.xyz> wrote in message
news:%232gRIParHHA.1208[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text]
> Word 2000 seems to handle it correctly, though.
>
> --
> Stefan Blom
> Microsoft Word MVP
>
>
> "Terry Farrell" wrote in message
> news:62067487-1DFE-49F6-A425-1C40E4F4E572[ at ]microsoft.com...
>> 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" <Bill[ at ]SynectixLtd.com> wrote in message
>> news:u9NeKQZrHHA.3276[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> > 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.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>


Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"Bill Davy" <Bill[ at ]SynectixLtd.com> 6/13/2007 10:48:31 AM
OK, I'll log it to MS. Hey ho.

"Terry Farrell" <terryfarrell[ at ]msn.com> wrote in message
news:62067487-1DFE-49F6-A425-1C40E4F4E572[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text]
> 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" <Bill[ at ]SynectixLtd.com> wrote in message
> news:u9NeKQZrHHA.3276[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
Robert <Robert[ at ]nomail.com> 6/13/2007 11:31:35 AM
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:

[Quoted Text]
> 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.
Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"Suzanne S. Barnhill" <sbarnhill[ at ]mvps.org> 6/13/2007 1:31:01 PM
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" <Robert[ at ]nomail.com> wrote in message
news:1idgfly6f41x8$.30t5tfsxpas5.dlg[ at ]40tude.net...
[Quoted Text]
> 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.

Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"PeterMcC" <peter[ at ]mccourt.org.uk> 6/13/2007 1:48:01 PM
Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote in
<uVdAk8brHHA.484[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>

[Quoted Text]
> 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.

Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"Terry Farrell" <terryfarrell[ at ]msn.com> 6/13/2007 2:33:06 PM
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" <peter[ at ]mccourt.org.uk> wrote in message
news:f4osi9$1mnd$1[ at ]energise.enta.net...
[Quoted Text]
> Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote in
> <uVdAk8brHHA.484[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>
>
>> 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.
>

Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"Suzanne S. Barnhill" <sbarnhill[ at ]mvps.org> 6/13/2007 3:05:07 PM
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" <peter[ at ]mccourt.org.uk> wrote in message
news:f4osi9$1mnd$1[ at ]energise.enta.net...
[Quoted Text]
> Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote in
> <uVdAk8brHHA.484[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>
>
> > 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.
>

Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
Robert <Robert[ at ]nomail.com> 6/13/2007 3:09:50 PM
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:

[Quoted Text]
> How does UK English handle the use of "staff" to mean a walking stick or a
> musical staff, either of which is decidedly singular?
Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"PeterMcC" <peter[ at ]mccourt.org.uk> 6/13/2007 3:24:41 PM
Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote in
<e0Vp32crHHA.3356[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>

[Quoted Text]
> 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.
RE: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
Mari Broman Olsen 6/13/2007 4:09:02 PM
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:

[Quoted Text]
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"Suzanne S. Barnhill" <sbarnhill[ at ]mvps.org> 6/13/2007 4:33:52 PM
The issue is that "The staff are happy" is not incorrect in UK (and some US)
usage.

--
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.

"Mari Broman Olsen" <Mari Broman Olsen[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:D6365863-79CD-438C-9968-6512283285C8[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text]
> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"Mike G" <justme[ at ]idontkno.com> 6/13/2007 4:36:21 PM
I copied and pasted your examples into my copy of w07 and got the same
results as you.

"Mari Broman Olsen" <Mari Broman Olsen[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:D6365863-79CD-438C-9968-6512283285C8[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text]
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>


Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"Terry Farrell" <terryfarrell[ at ]msn.com> 6/13/2007 9:06:22 PM
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 Olsen[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:D6365863-79CD-438C-9968-6512283285C8[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text]
> 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:

Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"Terry Farrell" <terryfarrell[ at ]msn.com> 6/13/2007 9:10:51 PM
Robert

All reminiscent of the great 'coke is, coke are' debate!

Terry


"Robert" <Robert[ at ]nomail.com> wrote in message
news:n6owea0enrhn$.1764bn81jwj0h$.dlg[ at ]40tude.net...
[Quoted Text]
> 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?

Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"Tom Willett" <tompepper[ at ]mvps.invalid> 6/13/2007 9:27:30 PM
The staff *am* happy ;-)

Tom

"Terry Farrell" <terryfarrell[ at ]msn.com> wrote in message
news:119E4BF3-89C6-43BB-A283-5C64BC30ADE4[ at ]microsoft.com...
| 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 Olsen[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
| message news:D6365863-79CD-438C-9968-6512283285C8[ at ]microsoft.com...
| > 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:
|


Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"Terry Farrell" <terryfarrell[ at ]msn.com> 6/14/2007 9:14:31 PM
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" <no_email_here_please[ at ]tardis.com> wrote in message
news:t3s2739oiikpc8a9g784l53g39joh260k7[ at ]4ax.com...
[Quoted Text]
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:38:49 +0100, "Terry Farrell"
> <terryfarrell[ at ]msn.com> 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.

Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"gs" <gs[ at ]dontMail.telus> 6/15/2007 5:45:42 AM
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


Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"Graham Mayor" <gmayor[ at ]REMOVETHISmvps.org> 6/15/2007 5:50:21 AM
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:
[Quoted Text]
> 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


Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"Terry Farrell" <terryfarrell[ at ]msn.com> 6/15/2007 9:01:07 AM
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" <gs[ at ]dontMail.telus> wrote in message
news:Ok%23cqBxrHHA.1172[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text]
> 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
>
>

Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"gordo" <None[ at ]phony.net> 6/15/2007 5:14:58 PM
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 Olsen[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:D6365863-79CD-438C-9968-6512283285C8[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text]
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>


Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"Herb Tyson [MVP]" <herb[ at ]1x2y3z.xnw> 6/16/2007 4:01:15 AM
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" <None[ at ]phony.net> wrote in message
news:e%235A2C3rHHA.4676[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text]
> 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 Olsen[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:D6365863-79CD-438C-9968-6512283285C8[ at ]microsoft.com...
>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"Graham Mayor" <gmayor[ at ]REMOVETHISmvps.org> 6/16/2007 6:48:12 AM
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:
[Quoted Text]
> 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" <None[ at ]phony.net> wrote in message
> news:e%235A2C3rHHA.4676[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> 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 Olsen[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com>
>> wrote in message
>> news:D6365863-79CD-438C-9968-6512283285C8[ at ]microsoft.com...
>>> 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.


Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
Robert <Robert[ at ]nomail.com> 6/16/2007 12:48:36 PM
Here is some more food for thought:

From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_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,

BrE: The Clash are a well-known band; AmE: The Clash is a well known band.
BrE: 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

¡± 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 stylebook¡¦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 doesn¡¦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 ¡K
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/grammar/archive/collective_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. Compare:

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, ¡K
The government, which is elected by a simple majority, ¡K
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. Compare:

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:

[Quoted Text]
> Can be and often is, but I don't believe it was ever correct. I guess
this
> is just another case of evolving usage.
Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"Terry Farrell" <terryfarrell[ at ]msn.com> 6/16/2007 3:00:28 PM
Robert

That just about covers every possibility. It could be summed up as 'anything
goes.' :)

Terry Farrell

"Robert" <Robert[ at ]nomail.com> wrote in message
news:1uk48nnrx4j80.s0agkip1utvw$.dlg[ at ]40tude.net...
[Quoted Text]
> Here is some more food for thought:
>
> From
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_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,
>
> BrE: The Clash are a well-known band; AmE: The Clash is a well known band.
> BrE: 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
>
> ¡± 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 stylebook¡¦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 doesn¡¦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 ¡K
> 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/grammar/archive/collective_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. Compare:
>
> 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, ¡K
> The government, which is elected by a simple majority, ¡K
> 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. Compare:
>
> 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.

Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
Robert <Robert[ at ]nomail.com> 6/16/2007 5:12:50 PM
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:

[Quoted Text]
> Robert
>
> That just about covers every possibility. It could be summed up as 'anything
> goes.' :)
>
> Terry Farrell
Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"Graham Mayor" <gmayor[ at ]REMOVETHISmvps.org> 6/17/2007 5:55:49 AM
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:
[Quoted Text]
> 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


Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"Bill Davy" <Bill[ at ]SynectixLtd.com> 6/19/2007 3:01:56 PM
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" <gmayor[ at ]REMOVETHISmvps.org> wrote in message
news:ecnxlQKsHHA.5008[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text]
> 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
>
>


Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
"Terry Farrell" <terryfarrell[ at ]msn.com> 6/19/2007 4:00:48 PM
Bill

Understood. That is exactly what all UK users are getting. A conflict where
both are reported as errors.

Terry


"Bill Davy" <Bill[ at ]SynectixLtd.com> wrote in message
news:uS74ILosHHA.4424[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text]
> 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" <gmayor[ at ]REMOVETHISmvps.org> wrote in message
> news:ecnxlQKsHHA.5008[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>

Re: Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"
Stefan Blom 6/20/2007 9:48:00 AM
[Quoted Text]
> 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
> news:62067487-1DFE-49F6-A425-1C40E4F4E572[ at ]microsoft.com...
> > 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" <Bill[ at ]SynectixLtd.com> wrote in message
> > news:u9NeKQZrHHA.3276[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>

Home | Search | Terms | Imprint Contact
Newsgroups Reader - provided by WiredBox.Net