• The forum software that supports hummy.tv has been upgraded to XenForo 2.3!

    Please bear with us as we continue to tweak things, and feel free to post any questions, issues or suggestions in the upgrade thread.

Assume v. Presume

Indeed, but if the source material is not written in English and is then converted by a non-English translator, they are at least understandable mistakes (who would guess, without a strong English background, that 's is a possessive for a definite article and not for an indefinite one?).

(I am not disputing the posts or their relevance, merely making an observation.)
 
There seems to be a trend to refer to a current situation as "was". On the West local news tonight they were reporting on the new managerial appointment at Swindon Town, and they said (something like) "it was announced the new manager was ..." (as opposed to "is" or "will be").

(They also had an interview with Gavin Hansen, which they introduced as "speaking exclusively to Points West" - when an excerpt from it was shown on Wales Today!)
 
But surely, if it had already been announced, which it must have been otherwise no one would know about it, it must have been announced in the past, so 'was' is correct in this instance. 'Will be' would be used in the case of a leak, as is the present Government policy, then 'will be announced' would be correct?
 
"The new manager of Swindon Town was ..."? To me, "was" implies he has been but no longer is. Henry VIII was the king of England, Elizabeth II is the queen of England and was crowned in 1953.
 
Ah Ha. Missed it. I was looking at the first 'was' in your example that relates to the announcement, not the manager. I now realise that you were referring to the second 'was'. In which case, it was wrong and I agree Doh. And ...the new manager was... would be a bit of an oxymoron anyway.
 
Less v Fewer Again
I was last night reading the Honda magazine Dream. They were extolling the virtues of the new Honda CR-V and a couple of its virtues are {apparently} "Low running costs, fewer emissions". Now this got me thinking about previous posts on the subject as to whether it should be 'fewer' or 'less'. If the carbon monoxide is reduced compared with current models, surely it would be 'less carbon monoxide'. The same would be true of 'less carbon dioxide'. Given the two emissions of CO2 and CO, if one of them was totally absent, then it would definitely be 'fewer emissions' as the emissions have gone down from two to one. But if they were still both present, as they must be, surely it should be 'less'. Also, as 'less' and 'fewer' are comparatives, should not the object of comparison be mentioned?
Is it because 'emissions' is a plural that makes 'fewer' correct, if so, is it correct to use 'fewer' for all pluralised nouns?
Discuss
 
Definitely "less", unless (as you say) they have eliminated one or more of the emission constituents completely (which seems unlikely). Unfortunately, in this case, "fewer" sounds more poetic.

"Less emissions" also implies to me that all the constituents have decreased individually. If some had gone down and others gone up, but the emissions in total had decreased, that would be "less emission".
 
Trev said:
Ah Ha. Missed it. I was looking at the first 'was' in your example that relates to the announcement, not the manager. I now realise that you were referring to the second 'was'. In which case, it was wrong and I agree Doh. And ...the new manager was... would be a bit of an oxymoron anyway.
Click to expand...
The new manager is a moron? Yes, probably, whatever Swindon Town happens to be...

Sorry, I could probably have been clearer (nice split infinitive there!).
 
Trev said:
Less v Fewer Again
I was last night reading the Honda magazine Dream. They were extolling the virtues of the new Honda CR-V and a couple of its virtues are {apparently} "Low running costs, fewer emissions".
Click to expand...

Fewer driven wheels too? Or less? Do they mean the 2WD version with a 1.6L diesel engine? (The figures for other variants don't look that spectacular.)

Of course, you must factor in the emissions involved in manufacturing the car, too.
 
That works for me BH. That's some consideration. Nearly 7 hours of deep thought. :) I knew that you would come up with the optimised answer. Or is that sub-woofers?
Mike0001 said:
Fewer driven wheels too? Or less? Do they mean the 2WD version with a 1.6L diesel engine? (The figures for other variants don't look that spectacular.)
Of course, you must factor in the emissions involved in manufacturing the car, too.
Click to expand...
Yes, the 2wd version with the 1.6 diesel. Manufacturing emissions? Who gives a .... It was the semantics of less or fewer that I really care about.
 
Trev said:
That works for me BH. That's some consideration. Nearly 7 hours of deep thought. :) I knew that you would come up with the optimised answer. Or is that sub-woofers?
Yes, the 2wd version with the 1.6 diesel. Manufacturing emissions? Who gives a .... It was the semantics of less or fewer that I really care about.
Click to expand...

Fewer driven wheels it is, then.:D
 
Trev said:
Nearly 7 hours of deep thought. :)
Click to expand...
The Great Hyperlobic Omnicognic Neutron-Wrangler can talk all four legs off an Arcturan megadonkey, but only I can persuade it to go for a walk afterwards. Molest me not with this pocket-calculator stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top