Chrysler “Thank You America” Blog Blows Up in Their Face

cavedweller wrote:
> On Jan 1, 10:22 pm, Joe Pfeiffer > wrote:
> s, Americans will use the singular while the English use the
>>>> plural.
>>> See my answer to Bill. On the basis of your explanation, what would
>>> that make Higgins?
>> I'm not familiar with "Higgins"...
>
> errr...the OP, he who declared that the "Chrysler blog blew up in
> their face"...or should that be "faces". 8)

You could say "face" - again - it's collective. For example, you could
say "If Congress doesn't stop screwing around, I'm going to kick their
collective ass."

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

cavedweller wrote:
> On Jan 2, 7:16 am, "Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote:
>> My understanding is that "they" etc is ok if the noun acts as a 'collective'
>> noun. Therefore, "Chrysler are" is fine because it refers to a collection
>> of people. "The corporation is" is also ok because the corporation is a
>> single entity. The use of "it" does not have definite overtones of
>> 'inanimatedness'. It just means no gender, so the corporation can have its
>> acccounts audited.
>>
>> I think the key is to decide on one mode in a paragraph or article and stick
>> with it.
>
> Agree with all of the above, actually. It was my perverse side that
> led me to mix 'em.
>> Where "they" for singular has crept in through usage -- at least in the
>> UK -- is the 'politically correct' way of dealing with a person of
>> undetermined gender. This is a way of avoiding "he" when it could be he or
>> she. In other languages this may be unnecessary since the word "person"
>> itself has gender. In German for example it is feminine. So in a German
>> sentence one would speak of a person who has money in her pocket, whether it
>> is a woman or a man.
>
> Bingo! It used to be that the singular pronoun "he" was the default
> for the condition where the gender was indeterminate. Now, we have to
> have the plural "their" because folks can't say "he" without guilt.
>
> ....drives me nuts, but not as much as the talking heads on the news
> programs on television who, when asked a question, begin with "I
> mean...".

Or when they talk to each other: "Yes, Bob, the owner of the store said
that...". Why are they talking to each other - they should be talking
to their audience - I feel like I'm being rude by listening in.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

cavedweller wrote:
> On Jan 1, 9:40 pm, Bill Putney > wrote:

>> ...So how come we say "that door is closed" (not "that door is close"), but
>> "that door is open" (not "that door is opened")? I think I know why,
>> but would be interested in your guess or answer.
>>
> Huh? Maybe it only matters when the door is close to being
> closed.........no....
> ...maybe it is an elliptical sentence with the words missing having to
> do with the door's (note the possessive) being (subjunctive) in
> a.....closed state....no..
> ....that door has been closed...........what's yours?

The only explanation that I have been able to come up with over the
years that consistently makes sense is this: There are two words spelled
"close", and they are pronounced differently ("don't stand so close to
me", "close the door"). *If* we routinely said "The door is close" to
describe its state, if we were reading a sentence something like "The
door is close", our brains would not be able to know for sure which word
it was until after finishing the sentence or otherwise getting the
context, so thru (I like spelling it like that) usage, to make reading
easier, we would say "That door is closed" (vs. "That door is close")
most of the time unless we are saying something like "That door is close
to the window".

With the word "open", you don't have that dual-pronunciation word battle
going on in the brain, so we say "The door is open" (vs. "The door is
opened", unless the door is in the process of being opened).

To be sure, for the door that is open, we're almost as comfortable with
'opened' as 'open'. though 'open' is/seems more "correct" to our ears.
But to say "The door is close" simply sounds wrong to our ears.

That's the best I can come up with. Haven't heard any better explanation.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

On Jan 2, 12:15*pm, Bill Putney > wrote:
>
> LOL! *Noise turning off or on when you turn to a particular side doesn't
> mean anything. *I used to adamantly argue that it did, but I've had to
> change my thinking on that due to reality hitting me in the face over
> the last couple of years.
>
> Basically, on most cars they design (it designs?) the offset of the
> factory wheels to put the plane of the center of pressure (pavement to
> tread) in the center plane of the bearing, so it could go either way.
> Only when those two planes are not close to congruent is there any
> reason to expect to be able to tell which bearing is bad by which
> direction you turn in to make the bearing louder.
>
I knew you'd remember!! My own theory had to do with the width of the
bearing and the moments that it would see....no matter. After our
last discussion a few years ago now, I bought a stethoscope.

On Jan 2, 12:17*pm, Bill Putney > wrote:
> cavedweller wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 10:22 pm, Joe Pfeiffer > wrote:
> > s, Americans will use the singular while the English use the
> >>>> plural.
> >>> See my answer to Bill. * *On the basis of your explanation, what would
> >>> that make Higgins?
> >> I'm not familiar with "Higgins"...
>
> > errr...the OP, he who declared that the "Chrysler blog blew up in
> > their face"...or should that be "faces". 8)
>
> You could say "face" - again - it's collective. *For example, you could
> say "If Congress doesn't stop screwing around, I'm going to kick their
> collective ass."
>
Friend of mine thought he had the answer to the "their" use as a
singular possessive. He invented a few. One was "hesh"...I forget
the rest. You get the idea.

I only heard this expression for the first time a few years ago (a small
proportion of my life) and I find it a curious one. Does it mean the brain
emits a gas? Smelly methane? Does this contribute to global warming...?...

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"cavedweller" > wrote in message
...
[...]

Note brain fart..[...]

How about s/he?

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"cavedweller" > wrote in message
...
[...]
Friend of mine thought he had the answer to the "their" use as a
singular possessive. He invented a few. One was "hesh"...I forget
the rest. You get the idea.

On Jan 2, 6:33*pm, "Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote:
> How about s/he?
>
OK, but how would we pronounce it?

Purely written form. Cannot be spoken for fear of raising the Devil.

Don't you know about such words?

:-)
DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"cavedweller" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 2, 6:33 pm, "Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote:
> How about s/he?
>
OK, but how would we pronounce it?

Jim Higgins wrote:
> cavedweller wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 2:51 pm, Jim Higgins > wrote:
>>> Chrysler “Thank You America” Blog Blows Up in Their
>>> Facehttp://blog.chryslerllc.com/blog.do?id=564&p=entry
>>>
>>> --
>>> Civis Romanus Sum
>>
>> You must be ecstatic! (Shouldn't it be "its" face?)
>
> "It" implies an inanimate object "their" encompasses the whole of
> Chrysler. I am *not* pleased that my tax money is stolen for the
> benefit of GM and Chrysler, Pete & Repeat that should have gone into
> bankruptcy. They will go into bankruptcy as their market share drops
> and more folks buy their cars from the other made in America
> manufacturers-Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc.

Toyota is circling the drain too- first financial loss in 70 years,
quality problems everywhere for the past 7-8 years finally getting
through the thick skulls of the Gen-Xers who bought into the myth of
superior quality.

Its hardly a "Detroit" problem. People finally just realized they don't
NEED a fancy new car every 2 years. Once every 10 years is plenty. The
company that can cut production and SHRINK to fit the demand best while
remaining profitable will win, NOT the company that tries to continue
following the "grow or die" model.