Alright, alright... No need to get all thigh and mighty on me.
EDIT: Damn.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Which of these is grammatically correct?
- Thread starter c073186
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Alright, alright... No need to get all thigh and mighty on me.
EDIT: Damn.
You're hamstrung when you're up against the fastest punslinger in the West. It's great tibia winner.
I hope you femur humble tomorrow.
It's just another ligament of his imagination.
On a similar note, which of these is correct:
a) The United States are going to war
b) The United States is going to war
Actually neither is correct.
There are two fundamental semantic/grammatical problems with the name of the country in question:
1. "The United States" is like saying "The Canada" or "The Argentina": it is just "Canada", it is just "Argentina", and it is therefore, just "United States". It is just bad luck for you (if you come from that country) that the name is fused with a constitutional construct (employs a constitutional construct as a proper name), and it is just this which causes the confusion. Very silly to label a country by its composition. It is tantamount to calling a child "dad-mum".
2. the "of America" part is meaningless. If anything, it should read "in America", but even that would be silly.
Argentina doesn't call itself "Argentina of America", nor Peru "Peru of America": there is only one Argentina and one Peru. Just as there is no need to differentiate (the) Argentina and Peru which exist in America from an Argentina or Peru which exists elsewhere (no others exist), there is no need to differentiate (the) United States which exists in America from a United States which exists elsewhere. All that is required is "United States".
Spin-off problems:
The problem with appending "of America" to "United States" ("United States OF AMERICA") is relatively minor: it is silly, but apart from that, socially benign.
However when the dual error is employed - "of America" is appended to "The United States" ("THE United States OF AMERICA") - what is implied is that a group of states called "United States" are the only states of America, that "United States", being "THE United States OF AMERICA", exhausts the entity "America". If this is in fact the case (if this is indeed the implied semantic), we would, as a matter of logical deduction, expect that those who live in such country would confirm this in reserving for themselves and themselves only the citizenship title "American", to the exclusion of all other Americans (Mexicans, Canadians, Peruvians etc). And of course, this is what we find, with the further spin-off problem resulting: those from United States exhibit an egocentricity which is conveniently accidental.
So it is unfortunately the case that one of the biggest 'fluffs' of the modern era, is that the country which 'leads the way', doesn't know what its own name is, and has instead chosen 4 possible versions ("United States", "United States of America", "The United States", "The United States of America"), these being constantly in a state of flux, with the last one providing for the ego problem.
Apropos then are the following two points:
1. The name is "United States". Nothing more. And its citizens are therefore properly endowed with the awkward title, "United Statesens".
2. The name should be changed from "United States", to something resembling a proper name (an actual name) rather than a constitutional construct, thus providing for an appropriate citizenship tag which does not disenfranchise the citizens of other countries who live in the Americas, from that which is their continent too, and which therefore and also rolls off the tongue a little more pleasantly than the technically correct "United Statesen", being something more akin to "Austrian", "English", "Russian", "Mexican", "Canadian".
a) The United States are going to war
b) The United States is going to war
Actually neither is correct.
There are two fundamental semantic/grammatical problems with the name of the country in question:
1. "The United States" is like saying "The Canada" or "The Argentina": it is just "Canada", it is just "Argentina", and it is therefore, just "United States". It is just bad luck for you (if you come from that country) that the name is fused with a constitutional construct (employs a constitutional construct as a proper name), and it is just this which causes the confusion. Very silly to label a country by its composition. It is tantamount to calling a child "dad-mum".
2. the "of America" part is meaningless. If anything, it should read "in America", but even that would be silly.
Argentina doesn't call itself "Argentina of America", nor Peru "Peru of America": there is only one Argentina and one Peru. Just as there is no need to differentiate (the) Argentina and Peru which exist in America from an Argentina or Peru which exists elsewhere (no others exist), there is no need to differentiate (the) United States which exists in America from a United States which exists elsewhere. All that is required is "United States".
Spin-off problems:
The problem with appending "of America" to "United States" ("United States OF AMERICA") is relatively minor: it is silly, but apart from that, socially benign.
However when the dual error is employed - "of America" is appended to "The United States" ("THE United States OF AMERICA") - what is implied is that a group of states called "United States" are the only states of America, that "United States", being "THE United States OF AMERICA", exhausts the entity "America". If this is in fact the case (if this is indeed the implied semantic), we would, as a matter of logical deduction, expect that those who live in such country would confirm this in reserving for themselves and themselves only the citizenship title "American", to the exclusion of all other Americans (Mexicans, Canadians, Peruvians etc). And of course, this is what we find, with the further spin-off problem resulting: those from United States exhibit an egocentricity which is conveniently accidental.
So it is unfortunately the case that one of the biggest 'fluffs' of the modern era, is that the country which 'leads the way', doesn't know what its own name is, and has instead chosen 4 possible versions ("United States", "United States of America", "The United States", "The United States of America"), these being constantly in a state of flux, with the last one providing for the ego problem.
Apropos then are the following two points:
1. The name is "United States". Nothing more. And its citizens are therefore properly endowed with the awkward title, "United Statesens".
2. The name should be changed from "United States", to something resembling a proper name (an actual name) rather than a constitutional construct, thus providing for an appropriate citizenship tag which does not disenfranchise the citizens of other countries who live in the Americas, from that which is their continent too, and which therefore and also rolls off the tongue a little more pleasantly than the technically correct "United Statesen", being something more akin to "Austrian", "English", "Russian", "Mexican", "Canadian".
What nonsense. There is The Argentine, The Lebanon, The United Kingdom, The Virgin Islands, The Republic of China. What is the problem?
Eh......
Obviously a United Statesen, and therefore someone who doesn't know much about grammar. (The same people who say "write me" instead of "write to me" (presumably they are asking you to write the word "me"), and "I agree those ideas" instead of "I agree to those ideas", and "six hundred fifty-four" instead of "six hundred and fifty-four" and numerous other bogun constructs.)
As I have said, "The United states of America" implies that a group of states which happen to be united, exhaust the entity that is America, to which interpretation its people implicitly agree, in their having the gaul to hijack the term "American" for their citizenship tag.
Do you hear an Iranian telling you his citizenship is "Middle Eastern"?
If we were to coin the phrase "The United Countries of Europe", we would not be saying "The [United Countries] of Europe" (as distinct from some non-united countries of Europe). Rather, we would be saying "The (United) [Countries of Europe]", meaning that Europe consists of countries, all of which are united, and that therefore "The United Countries of Europe" refers to all of Europe.
So too then, when we say "The United States of America", we are saying "The (United) [States of America]", meaning that America consists of states, all of which are united, and that therefore "The United States of America" refers to all of America.
And as I have pointed out, that the people from United States declare their citizenship to be "American" (goodness me), is evidence of the damage this grammatically-errant construct has done.
Moreover, they can't make up their minds as to whether they are from "United States" (you often see this on an atlas), "The United States", "United States of America" (hence U.S.A), or "The United States of America". So it is either U.S, T.U.S, U.S.A, or T.U.S.A.
They need to get a less semantically-manipulative name.
Similarly,
"The United Peoples of Africa", doesn't contrast with some supposed non-united peoples of Africa, but rather, implies that Africa consists of people, all of whom are united, and that the term "The United Peoples of Africa" therefore refers to all Africans and therefore exhausts the entity that is Africa.
And so "The United States of America" does not mean "The particular states of America which are united" (as distinct from some supposed non-united states of America), but rather, that America consists of states, all of which are united, and the term "The United States of America" exhausts the entity known as "America".
The name is wrong, and that is that. It should be replaced with a name which is a Proper noun. And its people should stop calling their citizenship after the name of their continent. Columbus discovered the Americas, not any united states, and certainly not United States.
You have no idea. Speaking a different dialect is not the same as not knowing much about grammar. As a matter of fact, anyone who writes "bogun" and "gaul" in a post criticising someone's English is a bit of a joke, don't you think?
There are other states in America which simply do not happen to be united. Do you have a problem distinguishing them from the united ones?
Bah! I give up!
Edit: There is no way I'm re-posting the goats thing again.
Don't feel bad. English is not my first language and you helped me understand the "I" or "me" usage.
The correct one is: b Do you want to go with Matt and me to the restaurant?, right?
If you're going to go shopping, then it's, "I'm going to the store."
If you're going to be putting something away for use later, then it's, "I'm going to store this."
Yes indeed.
Just remember that "I" is always going to be the subject (so look for a verb conjugation) and "me" will be an object (so look for a different subject in the sentence).
I find you to be immensely annoying. It's The United States or The United States of America. You can nitpick all you want, but you're just going to have to accept the fact that sometimes phrases are just so commonly used that they become de jure grammatically correct.
Way back in ancient times, the great Hitchcock film, "The Birds," was about to be release to great anticipation - rightfully so, it's a scary, wonderful flick. To build up the box office, an ad campaign was started that included signs in public places (Times Square, etc.) saying "The Birds is Coming!" Were the signs grammatically correct? Why?
Well naturally, as the title of the movie makes the subject a singular noun.
Of course they should have at least italicized or underlined the title, as that's how we foolish mortals distinguish between titles.
A - No, because I believe a comma is needed between shiny & new
B - yes?
C - yes and no? Appropriate comma placement to separate the word Apple, but I think a comma is also needed between shiny and new as in option A??
Conclusion: My grammar and punctuation rather suck
You have no idea.
Great argument. I should have thought of it before I mouthed off.
Speaking a different dialect is not the same as not knowing much about grammar.
It is in your case.
Here it is again:
If we said something like “The United Peoples of Africa”, we would be saying that Africa consisted of several peoples, all of whom were united, and that the term “The United Peoples of Africa” was therefore a reference to all of Africa.
Same for “The United States of America”: we would be saying that “America” consisted of states, all of which were united, and that the term “The United States of America” was therefore a reference to all of America.
It doesn’t matter that no-one has pointed this grammatical error out to you until now, nor that you haven’t had the grammatical expertise to work it out for yourself. The important thing is that you now know, and that you can work toward getting your country’s name changed to a proper name which is also, far less manipulative (you will no longer be able to hijack the name of your continent to use as the name of your country).
So then, because I know that I am right on this issue, I also know that it will be impossible to refute my argument. I therefore look forward to the bluff and puff of the United Statens on this thread.
The fact is without any doubt whatsoever, that America is not your country, but simply the continent in which your country exists. You are therefore not "American" by nationality: you are United Statesen. Facts, are facts. It doesn't matter what you say or what you want to be the case, if you disagree with this argument, you are necessarily wrong. You are not "American" by nationality. You can't just call yourselves what you want to just because you feel like it. First work on not feeling like it, then change what you call yourselves to something which doesn't disenfranshise other Americans such as Peruvians, from their continent.
Start by saying "I am not American by nationality....I am not American by nationality" over and over as you go to sleep each night.
Great argument. I should have thought of it before I mouthed off.
Speaking a different dialect is not the same as not knowing much about grammar.
It is in your case.
Here it is again:
If we said something like “The United Peoples of Africa”, we would be saying that Africa consisted of several peoples, all of whom were united, and that the term “The United Peoples of Africa” was therefore a reference to all of Africa.
Same for “The United States of America”: we would be saying that “America” consisted of states, all of which were united, and that the term “The United States of America” was therefore a reference to all of America.
It doesn’t matter that no-one has pointed this grammatical error out to you until now, nor that you haven’t had the grammatical expertise to work it out for yourself. The important thing is that you now know, and that you can work toward getting your country’s name changed to a proper name which is also, far less manipulative (you will no longer be able to hijack the name of your continent to use as the name of your country).
So then, because I know that I am right on this issue, I also know that it will be impossible to refute my argument. I therefore look forward to the bluff and puff of the United Statens on this thread.
The fact is without any doubt whatsoever, that America is not your country, but simply the continent in which your country exists. You are therefore not "American" by nationality: you are United Statesen. Facts, are facts. It doesn't matter what you say or what you want to be the case, if you disagree with this argument, you are necessarily wrong. You are not "American" by nationality. You can't just call yourselves what you want to just because you feel like it. First work on not feeling like it, then change what you call yourselves to something which doesn't disenfranshise other Americans such as Peruvians, from their continent.
Start by saying "I am not American by nationality....I am not American by nationality" over and over as you go to sleep each night.
This thread isn't going to be dumped into the PRSI forums because one member keeps trying to push it there.
Surgeon2, that's enough. Drop it.
Surgeon2, that's enough. Drop it.
There is little point in repeating the same tedious claptrap. I am not from the United States of America, by the way, and I believe I have as good an idea of the English language as anybody, certainly good enough to know that your first and only posts on this forum have been a complete waste of space.