Conquer Club

And I don't care if you don't agree! There still awseome!

This thread is so getting locked.

This thread burns.

and crashes right in your face. Poor PCM.

this isn't a witch hunt against animorpherv1, but surely the title should read

Greenday are awsome!

There's more than one Greenday?

Pedronicus wrote:this isn't a witch hunt against animorpherv1, but surely the title should read

Greenday are awsome!

Greenday is a singular proper noun, so no it shouldn't.

but greenday are trio of musicians.

Pedronicus wrote:but greenday are trio of musicians.

it's a trio. One trio. You're referring to one group of people, not to three people. You could say <name of band member>, <name of other band member>, and <name of third band member> are awesome. But Green Day is one band. They are awesome, but it is awesome. According to animo, anyway. I don't tend to agree so much.

Pedronicus wrote:but greenday are a trio of musicians.

Pwnt.

"Greenday" collectively refers to the group, not the musicians. If "group" is singular, why is a proper noun meaning a specific group plural?

Ditocoaf wrote:

Pedronicus wrote:but greenday are trio of musicians.

it's a trio. One trio. You're referring to one group of people, not to three people. You could say <name of band member>, <name of other band member>, and <name of third band member> are awesome. But Green Day is one band. They are awesome, but it is awesome. According to animo, anyway. I don't tend to agree so much.

Actually, both are correct. I believe the British prefer pluralizing collective nouns, but it's just that, a preference.

Spelling and Grammar Nazi out!

While were at it, we should pummerize the Eiffel Tower.

But Ani's Canadian. It's the same kind of English.

pancakemix wrote:But Ani's Canadian. It's the same kind of English.

It's correct in both Englishes

InkL0sed wrote:

pancakemix wrote:But Ani's Canadian. It's the same kind of English.

It's correct in both Englishes

I took the PSAT this morning and pluralizing Greenday would've been wrong on that. That's a demand not a preference.

Ani, please change the title to reflect the current discussion.

InkL0sed wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:

Pedronicus wrote:but greenday are trio of musicians.

it's a trio. One trio. You're referring to one group of people, not to three people. You could say <name of band member>, <name of other band member>, and <name of third band member> are awesome. But Green Day is one band. They are awesome, but it is awesome. According to animo, anyway. I don't tend to agree so much.

Actually, both are correct. I believe the British prefer pluralizing collective nouns, but it's just that, a preference.

Spelling and Grammar Nazi out!

Well, do the british say "I saw a band, green day, playing a song," or "I saw multiple band, green day, playing music," then I don't give a shit about their preferences.

A group is. MULTIPLE groups are.

"band" is singular, so a "band is."
"bands" is plural, so multiple "bands are"

f*ck acceptable common usage. lets try applying logic to language for once!

Either way he still spelled "awesome" wrong.

timmytuttut88 wrote:Either way he still spelled "awesome" wrong.

[

the british would say I saw the band greenday, playing a song

InkL0sed wrote:
Spelling and Grammar Nazi out!

I'm not normally a spelling and grammar nazi, i was just mucking around with ami, after he wanted a witch hunt in another thread. I'm no one to moan about spelling, because i rarely use capitals in my posts (just down to pure laziness and the fact that i use just a couple of fingers to type)

but I've heard the same argument on a radio show regarding someone referring to Manchester United, saying Manchester United 'is' playing tonight That radio show never got to the bottom of what was right or wrong.

If nothing else, this forum could be once in a while , educational.

Pedronicus wrote:the british would say I saw the band greenday, playing a song

That's correct, but so is "I saw a band, greenday, playing a song" because I could also say "I saw a band playing a song."

pancakemix wrote:

timmytuttut88 wrote:Either way he still spelled "awesome" wrong.

[

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/awesome

The only definition i got for awsome is "the same as awesome". So I guess it goes either way.

timmytuttut88 wrote:

pancakemix wrote:

timmytuttut88 wrote:Either way he still spelled "awesome" wrong.

[

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/awesome

The only definition i got for awsome is "the same as awesome". So I guess it goes either way.

I know, that's the joke. It's not only spelled wrong, but it's permanent.

Pedronicus wrote:the british would say I saw the band greenday, playing a song

Exactly... the band is playing a song. Not, "the band are playing a song." To be consistent with the rest of the english language, the noun should be either a plural noun or a singular noun. If it has a singular article, it should have a singular predicate.

pancakemix wrote:

timmytuttut88 wrote:

pancakemix wrote:

timmytuttut88 wrote:Either way he still spelled "awesome" wrong.

[

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/awesome

The only definition i got for awsome is "the same as awesome". So I guess it goes either way.

I know, that's the joke. It's not only spelled wrong, but it's permanent.

Lol, sometimes i'm kinda slow...

I laughed at the tattoo. Anyone who needs to tattoo themselves proclaiming their awesomeness is a twat. but to get this twat face down on a bed in a tattoo parlour and then spell it wrong, thats just brilliant.