On 16/10/2013 16:55, Spider wrote:
On 16/10/2013 14:51, Gary Woods wrote:
David Hill wrote:

Around £10,000 were stolen from a house
Or should it be
Around £10,000 was stolen from a house.

English or American version?




English, no doubt!;~). How does the American version differ, if it does?



I can answer my own question: "It would be (a sum of) $10,000 was
stolen".

--
Spider.
On high ground in SE London
gardening on heavy clay

On 16/10/2013 16:41, Another John wrote:
In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:

£10,000 [of money] were stolen.

I think you will find both forms in common usage in the UK ...

Incredible. No you wouldn't, because it's purely and simply wrong! In
common usage, any British born-and-bred person when faced with the words
"ten thousand pounds" would think instantly in terms of the abstract
noun of "money", not in terms the concrete noun, "notes".


Your point...
Although in certain Lancashire dialects
"were" is used when "was" would be grammatically correct.

That's not "grammatically correct": that's dialect. (Also common in
Yorkshire, where I come from.) And it's not the word "were" as in the
plural form of "was", but "wer'" as in the dialect way of saying "was"
(more often heard as "wo'" in the West Riding, and "wer'" elsewhere in
this belt of the country.

The language is going to hell, thanks to generations of young
illiterates who are now actually working, and (e.g.) writing newspaper
articles, having been brought up with an education of dubious values,
and receiving a "further" education in Facebook, Twitter, and the
internet in general, from their fellow illiterates.

If ever you want to know "the" answer to a question about English
Grammar, refer to "Modern English Usage" by H.W. Fowler, revised by Sir
Ernest Gowers in 1965 [sic]. It's worth its weight in gold (it weighs a
modest 705g, or 1lb 9oz if you prefer).

Yes, the English language evolves as the decades go by, but not as fast
as some people (the illiterate masses) would have you believe. Not even
as fast as the Big Dictionaries would have you believe either: people
like Collins and the OED now make regular press releases about "new
words" not because these have "entered the language" (because they'll
have gone again in a few years) but because they want to sell more
dictionaries (or subscriptions to their effing websites).

Thank you David, for giving me that opportunity! Nah then: wheer did ah
put me pipe? It wer' round ere some wheer....

J.




I hate the all-too-common aspiration of "h" when spoken during
spelling. It stems from this nonsensical phonetic teaching of the
alphabet, where young speakers are obliged to 'huff' when reciting the
alphabet or, indeed, when spelling out a word.

The letter 'h' can actually be spelled: aitch. It does not begin with
an 'h'. It should not be pronounced with one.

--
Spider.
On high ground in SE London
gardening on heavy clay

Thank you David, for giving me that opportunity! Nah then: wheer did ah
put me pipe? It wer' round ere some wheer....

J.

As the'd say round here
"It's over by there"

In article ,
Another John wrote:
In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:

£10,000 [of money] were stolen.

I think you will find both forms in common usage in the UK ...

Incredible. No you wouldn't, because it's purely and simply wrong! In
common usage, any British born-and-bred person when faced with the words
"ten thousand pounds" would think instantly in terms of the abstract
noun of "money", not in terms the concrete noun, "notes".

Not at all. "There was five million in the safe, of which ten
thousand were stolen."

Your point...
Although in certain Lancashire dialects
"were" is used when "was" would be grammatically correct.

That's not "grammatically correct": that's dialect. (Also common in
Yorkshire, where I come from.) And it's not the word "were" as in the
plural form of "was", but "wer'" as in the dialect way of saying "was"
(more often heard as "wo'" in the West Riding, and "wer'" elsewhere in
this belt of the country.

All forms of English are dialect or similar, despite the attempts
of some self-imposed pedants to hijack ownership of the language.
In particular, many of the 'incorrect' grammatical and spelling
forms are simply literary or old-fashioned - and, as a professional
pedant, I am referring to 18th century literary usage as merely
'old-fashioned'.

If ever you want to know "the" answer to a question about English
Grammar, refer to "Modern English Usage" by H.W. Fowler, revised by Sir
Ernest Gowers in 1965 [sic]. It's worth its weight in gold (it weighs a
modest 705g, or 1lb 9oz if you prefer).

It is, however, a simplified set of rules of the dogmatic version
of the language introduced by the Victorian pedantic establishment.
Once you learn enough, you start to break its rules more often!

Yes, the English language evolves as the decades go by, but not as fast
as some people (the illiterate masses) would have you believe. Not even
as fast as the Big Dictionaries would have you believe either: people
like Collins and the OED now make regular press releases about "new
words" not because these have "entered the language" (because they'll
have gone again in a few years) but because they want to sell more
dictionaries (or subscriptions to their effing websites).

In that paragraph, you have used one word, one meaning of an old
word, and two (unquoted) expressions that were not widespread when
I was at school.

Thank you David, for giving me that opportunity! Nah then: wheer did ah
put me pipe? It wer' round ere some wheer....

Ah! I have espied you as one of the manifolde abusers of this vile
custome of Tobacco taking, yet you preach of vertue!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 16/10/2013 16:41, Another John wrote:
The language is going to hell, thanks to generations of young
illiterates who are now actually working, and (e.g.) writing newspaper
articles, having been brought up with an education of dubious values,
and receiving a "further" education in Facebook, Twitter, and the
internet in general, from their fellow illiterates.


I'd say that one of the worst things with papers and publications in
general is that they are no longer proof read, just have spell checker
on the computer scan them.
I don't believe that they teach English grammar and things like clause
analysis in schools nowadays.

On 16/10/2013 16:52, Spider wrote:
On 16/10/2013 15:15, Martin wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:41:20 +0100, News
wrote:

On 16/10/2013 13:46, Martin wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:30:21 +0100, David Hill
wrote:

Around £10,000 were stolen from a house
Or should it be
Around £10,000 was stolen from a house.

If you regard the money as individual notes then they "were" stolen
but
if you regard it as a single unit of money then it "was" stolen.
It's niggling me.

Do you say ten thousand pounds or ten thousand pound?

were for the former, was for the latter.


I don't think so. In normal speech, the £10,000 is spoken as ten
thousand pounds and the correct (and as Tom said 'verbally 'elegant')
simple past tense would be 'was'.

In the same way, the past participle would be "£10,000 has been stolen",
as opposed to "£10,000 have been stolen".

If a pound was an actual 'thing' it would be different.

A pound is an actual thing. It might not seem much but ... :-)

"10,000
footballs were stolen", rather than "10,000 footballs" was stolen.

Or even 10,00 pounds of footballs were stolen, not was stolen.

As Spider said, it is "[a sum of] £10,000 pounds" that was stolen.

£10,000 pounds without the implicit "a sum of" is plural.

£10,000 [of money] were stolen.




But we're talking about grammar, Martin. Surely the proper sentence
should be "A sum of, etc."; therefore, it is singular.

Unless it's "Sums of money ammounting to £10,000"

On 16/10/2013 16:55, Spider wrote:
On 16/10/2013 14:51, Gary Woods wrote:
David Hill wrote:

Around £10,000 were stolen from a house
Or should it be
Around £10,000 was stolen from a house.

English or American version?




English, no doubt!;~). How does the American version differ, if it does?


Well the English could well be "Some tea-leaf made off with the dosh"

David shouldn't that be Dosh with a Capital 'D'? .... ;-)

Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------
www.rneba.org.uk




"David Hill" wrote in message ...

On 16/10/2013 16:55, Spider wrote:
On 16/10/2013 14:51, Gary Woods wrote:
David Hill wrote:

Around £10,000 were stolen from a house
Or should it be
Around £10,000 was stolen from a house.

English or American version?




English, no doubt!;~). How does the American version differ, if it does?


Well the English could well be "Some tea-leaf made off with the dosh"

On 16/10/2013 16:45, Pam Moore wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:45:18 +0100, David Hill
wrote:

On 16/10/2013 12:29, Bob Hobden wrote:
"shazzbat" wrote


"Tom Gardner"wrote
David Hill wrote:
Around £10,000 were stolen from a house
Or should it be
Around £10,000 was stolen from a house.

If you regard the money as individual notes then they "were" stolen
but if you regard it as a single unit of money then it "was" stolen.
It's niggling me.

IMNSHO the sentence is referring to a single unit,
therefore "was" is correct. Besides, it "sounds"
more elegant. If, OTOH, you had written "£10,000
worth of notes" then "were" would be correct.

GrammAr and spulling are they're to help people communicate
and understand each other Beyond that it is a question of
style and elegance.

And no, I'm not prepared to defend that statement.

You don't need to. It is self-evident.

While we are on this thread when did it become "Bored of this...."
instead of "bored with this....". I've even seen it written in adverts
lately.

Now for a discussion, should it be "Can I help you" or "May I help you"
when you answer the phone etc? :-)

Can I help you is asking the question "Am I able to help you"
whilst
May I help you is asking "Do you wish me to help you"

My present bug bear is "For Free"
Free means "for nothing" so for for nothing makes no sense.

David, you answered your own question about the money. I agree with
you.
I thought I was alone in fuming about "For free".

Another bugbear is "I would of", "He should of" etc which comes from
lazy speaking.

Oh please bring back Grammar schools.

Now how many of you say "somethink" and "anythink"
or "I am sat" or "I am stood". They've become more common than the
correct phrases.
Sorry if I've upset anyone. You've hit on my favourite subject, apart
from gadening!!!

Pam in Bristol

What about the seketre?

"Spider" wrote

Bob Hobden wrote:
"shazzbat" wrote


"Tom Gardner"wrote
David Hill wrote:
Around £10,000 were stolen from a house
Or should it be
Around £10,000 was stolen from a house.

If you regard the money as individual notes then they "were" stolen
but if you regard it as a single unit of money then it "was" stolen.
It's niggling me.

IMNSHO the sentence is referring to a single unit,
therefore "was" is correct. Besides, it "sounds"
more elegant. If, OTOH, you had written "£10,000
worth of notes" then "were" would be correct.

GrammAr and spulling are they're to help people communicate
and understand each other Beyond that it is a question of
style and elegance.

And no, I'm not prepared to defend that statement.

You don't need to. It is self-evident.

While we are on this thread when did it become "Bored of this...."
instead of "bored with this....". I've even seen it written in adverts
lately.

Now for a discussion, should it be "Can I help you" or "May I help you"
when you answer the phone etc? :-)



Regarding the latter, it should be "can I help you?" or even "How can I
help you?" "May" is permissive and your caller is already allowing you to
help them, so it only remains to satisfy *if* you can help them.

Occasionally, when wishing to help someone but not cause offence, I might
say "May I help you?" or "Will you let me help you with ..". In that
instance, I have already decided that I *can* help, but wish to be allowed
to help.


But "can I help you?" is a question the caller cannot answer because they
don't know if the person can or cannot.
--
Regards. Bob Hobden.
Posted to this Newsgroup from the W of London, UK

"David Hill" wrote ...

On 16/10/2013 16:55, Spider wrote:
On 16/10/2013 14:51, Gary Woods wrote:
David Hill wrote:

Around £10,000 were stolen from a house
Or should it be
Around £10,000 was stolen from a house.

English or American version?




English, no doubt!;~). How does the American version differ, if it does?


Well the English could well be "Some tea-leaf made off with the dosh"

It certainly would round ere gov.
--
Regards. Bob Hobden.
Posted to this Newsgroup from the W of London, UK

On 2013-10-16 16:46:20 +0100, Malcolm said:

snip

Neither are heinous crimes, unlike top-posting in a thread!

He does it to get the attention he has just received, because he knows
urglers dislike it!
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

You know very well that he does it because the clique don't follow the
suggestions of snipping the dross from their posts.

I don't need the attention thank you very much, I don't have anything to
advertise ................... yet.

Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------
www.rneba.org.uk




"Sacha" wrote in message ...

On 2013-10-16 16:46:20 +0100, Malcolm said:

snip

Neither are heinous crimes, unlike top-posting in a thread!

He does it to get the attention he has just received, because he knows
urglers dislike it!
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:25:02 +0100, David Hill
wrote:

Thank you David, for giving me that opportunity! Nah then: wheer did ah
put me pipe? It wer' round ere some wheer....

J.

As the'd say round here
"It's over by there"

On this side of the Bris'l Channel they'd say "by yerrr", never
"here".

Pam in Bristol

Mandy Rice Davies had an answer to that Malcolm

Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------
www.rneba.org.uk


"Malcolm" wrote in message ...


In article , 'Mike'
writes


Top posting because sooooooooo many people fail to observe the
suggestion that dross should be snipped. You've been down the thread
once to read what was said, why cover the whole lot again?

A very feeble response. But then you're afraid no-one will take any
notice of you unless you try and defy convention, which is the action of
a loser.

There's always a case for trimming, but none for putting the answer
above the question.

Top poster

Top who?

Top

Who's there?

Knock, knock

--
Malcolm