Yeah. Really!.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jedwards
[B][COLOR=red]Yeah.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tokyo_james
[B]I think it was Rogers and Hammerstein as well.

 

I'd forgotten that line, John. And, Rex wasn't much for singing, was he??

James is really on about something, isn't he... Bloody hell fire!!!

 

Jack, nice piece of research.

 

"The English ...... their " this, to me, would suggest that we are talking about a group of people, which, when I was at school, would have been considered to be plural ...... in which case, surely the sentence should actually be .....

"The English have no respect for their language, and will not teach their children to speak it."

As I said prevsiouly, they are ****ing arses and don't have a clue about our ****ing language

 

James, that's probably a typo by Jack. Even in the US, that sentence should be "The English have..."

The interesting evolution in the states is when we talk about a collective name as if it were a pronoun... That's definitely a time when we take the plural and make it a singular. To me, this is natural, but I can see both sides of the coin.

E.g., "Lloyd's of London has insurance policies on ships." I know, to your ears, that should be Lloyd's of London have...

Anyway, we're not arses, we're asses (and dang proud of it).

 

Oh, by the way, bite me.

 

Actually Charlie, Lloyds, being an institute in it's own right, even though it is made up of numerous individuals, in my view can be seen as an either/or in terms of plurality .......

This is something that I come across on a daily basis, as someone or another here will come and ask me whether something should be plural or singular .... it just depends on my mode which one I choose to tell them ....

I love the difference between ass and arse .... .... arse just sounds sooooooo English and ass soooooooo American

 

Right on, James!