|
These guys with dead Ewoks on their heads probably will appear in the next Star Wars movie:
The Force Freezes Over[^]
Come to the Dark Side, they said...
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Go put it in the Soapbox so I can tell you how funny you are.
|
|
|
|
|
As if I had told them to run around like that.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, Wraith. Ooh, scary dead spirit coder. 
|
|
|
|
|
Next I plan to scare some lunch.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
I think I can guess what your response will be.  Slacker007 will write: 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone I know agrees that "Lenovo makes electronic equipment" - it is a singular company, so the 's' should be in place.
Now considering Texas Instruments: "Texas Instruments makes electronic equipment", because TI is singular company (at least for this discussion), or "Texas Instruments make electronic equipment" because the name is a plural form?
I asked my colleauge from London about this. To be sure, I went to my Oregon colleague for a confirmation - but got the opposite answer.
So, you native English speakers from all over the world, would you say: Texas Instruments makes, or Texas Instruments make? Could this be a US vs. UK distinction - do you consider your English belonging to the "British" style, or to the "American" style?
To complicate it further: Informally, we often refer to TI as "Texas" only. Is it the "Texas makes electronics" but "Texas Instruments make electronics"? What about companies mostly known by their abbreviation, but the de-abbreviation is plural: IBM make, or makes, computers? - considering that the M is for Machines
The good thing is that globally considered, English is such a Babelian language that everything goes, and is for the most part understood whatever variant you choose.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd go with "Texas Instruments makes" as it's a singular company - the plurality is part of the name, not the manufacture process.
I could easily be wrong though.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Careful. The slightest mistake can get you shot in Texas, most probably perfectly covered by some obscure law.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
You are correct. It is singular, because the company is a single entity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apply standard rules of grammar. Is the subject "Texas Instruments" which is the name of a company singular or plural. If you say plural then you are saying "Texas Instruments" refers to many companies. Once that is resolved it is makes for singular subject and make for plural. How Babelian is that?
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
modified 16-May-18 9:53am.
|
|
|
|
|
The subject is singular so it takes the s.
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
I would use makes. Texas Instruments is the Company name and hence no different than saying google makes something. Although the name is plural the name is a singular entity and used as such.
A Fine is a Tax for doing something wrong
A Tax is a Fine for doing something good.
|
|
|
|
|
This is a tricky one because I think the English get it wrong.
If we were talking about a cricket match, an Englishman might say "England need another 200 runs" where an Aussie would be more likely to say "England needs another 200 runs."
Given that England in this context is a singular entity, the Australian version is logically correct but it sounds wrong to English ears.
Ultimately, I guess usage triumphs over rules when it comes to grammar and usage is never going to be standard across the Anglophone world.
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: Aussie would be more likely to say "England needs another 200 runs."
You obviously don't know Aussies very well.
They would be saying "pass another beer Sheryl, we just need a few more wickets"
A Fine is a Tax for doing something wrong
A Tax is a Fine for doing something good.
|
|
|
|
|
Well just to confuse:
- the English players need another 200 runs - in this case "needs" would definitely be wrong
- the English team needs/need another 200 runs (both correct, "team" is both singular and plural)
"team" / "players" can be dropped for brevity, hence "need" is always correct, "needs" is only sometimes correct.
The Texas Instruments case also depends if it's equipment from or of TI
- Texas Instruments makes electronic equipment.
- Texas Instruments electronic equipment
- Texas Instruments' electronic equipment
And just to prove how wonderful the language is:
- TI's electronic equipment - is OK
- Texas Instruments's electronic equipment - is not.
Tis manifest, 'in't it or no?
Signature ready for installation. Please Reboot now.
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: England need another 200 runs
Depends if you interpret 'England' as a team, singular, or a group of people, plural.
In fact the existence of the 's' tells you to which 'England' the speaker is referring.
|
|
|
|
|
This is tricky but I think that England can be a singular or collective noun, ie the country England or the England team which would make both forms correct. By the way an Aussie would say "The Poms need another 200 runs".
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
We would also, and often do, say "Australia need another 200" runs.
In this case "Australia " and "England" are collective nouns, and are therefore plural.
|
|
|
|
|
There's a definite difference, though, between the way that English and Aussie commentators phrase it. I'll frequently hear the "Team A needs Z runs" construct from Aussies but English commentators always say "need".
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
But surely, as we invented the language, we must be right.
I keep telling my granddaughters, who live in Melbourne, not to start talking like the Aussies, but to be true to their heritage. It doesn't seem to have worked though.
|
|
|
|
|
On the whole, I'm a firm advocate of speaking English as she is spoke by the English, but I do think that the Aussies have a technical point on this one. "Australia" in this contact collectively refers to a collective group of ball-tamperers and should really be 3rd person singular rather than plural.
On the other hand, I think that "The Beatles was fab" would sound rather ridiculous, so maybe the use of the plural should be seen as a triumph of English pragmatism over excessively logical grammar.
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
"Texas Instruments makes," is correct. Regardless of the name of the company, it is a single entity.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
