Not happy with "The staff are happy" OR "The staff is happy"

It just goes to show that you cannot expect a computer to substitute for a
proper education.

--

Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web site www.gmayor.com
Word MVP web site http://word.mvps.org


gs wrote:
for English Canada in Word 2003:rejects
The staff is happy

but accepts

Hundreds of Staff of the company is working through the night for
the project.

A hundred Staff of the company is working through the night for the
project.

A hundreds Staff of the company is working through the night for
the project.

Staff of the company is working through the night for the project.

A Staff of hundred the company is working through the night for the
project.

Word 2003 expects

The staffs are happy

and reject the "staff is"



while ' The staffs are happy" may be debatable,

"A Hundreds" definitely should not be accepted



Well, I guess we just can't rely on words spelling and grammar checking
entirely or else we have laughable to ludicrous writing to
show




I won't surprised there may be debate among the ms developers what
should be accepted with the wide diversity of ethnic, lingual
background among them.


BTW outlook express does accept "The staff is happy" but then it also
accepts

The staffs is happy

I believe that MS licence the proofing tools from an outside source. Every
once in a while, we are requested to provide any bugs with the proofing
tools: these will be added to the long list.

Terry

"gs" wrote in message
...
for English Canada in Word 2003:rejects
The staff is happy

but accepts

Hundreds of Staff of the company is working through the night for the
project.

A hundred Staff of the company is working through the night for the
project.

A hundreds Staff of the company is working through the night for the
project.

Staff of the company is working through the night for the project.

A Staff of hundred the company is working through the night for the
project.

Word 2003 expects

The staffs are happy

and reject the "staff is"



while ' The staffs are happy" may be debatable,

"A Hundreds" definitely should not be accepted



Well, I guess we just can't rely on words spelling and grammar checking
entirely or else we have laughable to ludicrous writing to show





I won't surprised there may be debate among the ms developers what should
be accepted with the wide diversity of ethnic, lingual background among
them.



BTW outlook express does accept "The staff is happy" but then it also
accepts

The staffs is happy

Staff is a singular noun. Staff is agreement with the verb "is". If it was a
plural noun, such as staffs, then "staffs are happy" is in agreement. I
think.

Gordo


"Mari Broman Olsen" Mari Broman wrote in
message news
Here's what I see on Word 2007

Staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged]
The staff are happy. [Correctly flagged]
The staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged]
A staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged]

What's the issue?

"Bill Davy" wrote:

In fact, the grammar checker seems to have green twiddlyitis with the
following:



The staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "staff is" but
see
below)

Staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "Staff is" or
"Staffs
are"

Staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs").

The staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs" but see
above).

A staff is happy. "A staff" has twiddles (suggests "Staffs")



Is it fixable? How?



Word 2003 SP2.

Depends on where you are. In the UK, staff can be considered a collective
noun, much as corporate entities, and often is considered plural.

--
Herb Tyson MS MVP
Author of the Word 2007 Bible
Blog: http://word2007bible.herbtyson.com
Web: http://www.herbtyson.com


"gordo" wrote in message
...
Staff is a singular noun. Staff is agreement with the verb "is". If it was
a plural noun, such as staffs, then "staffs are happy" is in agreement. I
think.

Gordo


"Mari Broman Olsen" Mari Broman wrote in
message news
Here's what I see on Word 2007

Staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged]
The staff are happy. [Correctly flagged]
The staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged]
A staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged]

What's the issue?

"Bill Davy" wrote:

In fact, the grammar checker seems to have green twiddlyitis with the
following:



The staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "staff is" but
see
below)

Staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "Staff is" or
"Staffs
are"

Staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs").

The staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs" but see
above).

A staff is happy. "A staff" has twiddles (suggests "Staffs")



Is it fixable? How?



Word 2003 SP2.

Can be and often is, but I don't believe it was ever correct. I guess this
is just another case of evolving usage.

--

Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web site www.gmayor.com
Word MVP web site http://word.mvps.org


Herb Tyson [MVP] wrote:
Depends on where you are. In the UK, staff can be considered a
collective noun, much as corporate entities, and often is considered
plural.

"gordo" wrote in message
...
Staff is a singular noun. Staff is agreement with the verb "is". If
it was a plural noun, such as staffs, then "staffs are happy" is in
agreement. I think.

Gordo


"Mari Broman Olsen" Mari Broman
wrote in message
news
Here's what I see on Word 2007

Staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged]
The staff are happy. [Correctly flagged]
The staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged]
A staff is happy. [Correctly not flagged]

What's the issue?

"Bill Davy" wrote:

In fact, the grammar checker seems to have green twiddlyitis with
the following:



The staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "staff
is" but see
below)

Staff are happy. "staff are" have twiddles (suggests "Staff is" or
"Staffs
are"

Staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs").

The staff is happy. "Staff" has twiddles (suggests "staffs" but
see above).

A staff is happy. "A staff" has twiddles (suggests "Staffs")



Is it fixable? How?



Word 2003 SP2.

Here is some more food for thought:

From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nal_agreement:

Formal and notional agreement
In BrE, collective nouns can take either singular (formal agreement) or
plural (notional agreement) verb forms, according to whether the emphasis
is, respectively, on the body as a whole or on the individual members;
compare a committee was appointed ... with the committee were unable to
agree ...[5][6] Compare also Elvis Costello's song, Oliver's Army is here
to stay / Oliver's Army are on their way. Some of these nouns, for example
staff,[7] actually combine with plural verbs most of the time.

In AmE, collective nouns are usually singular in construction: the
committee was unable to agree ... AmE however may use plural pronouns in
agreement with collective nouns: the team take their seats, rather than the
team takes its seat(s). However, such a sentence would most likely be
recast as the team members take their seats.

The difference occurs for all nouns of multitude, both general terms such
as team and company and proper nouns (for example, where a place name is
used to refer to a sports team). For instance,

B The Clash are a well-known band; AmE: The Clash is a well known band.
B Indianapolis are the champions; AmE: Indianapolis is the champion.

Proper nouns which are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and
BrE; for example, The Beatles are a well-known band; The Colts are the
champions.


From http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/020.html:

Grammar: Traditional Rules, Word Order, Agreement, and Case

¡± 20. collective noun
Some nouns, like committee, clergy, enemy, group, family, and team, refer
to a group but are singular in form. These nouns are called collective
nouns. In American usage, a collective noun takes a singular verb when it
refers to the collection considered as a whole, as in The family was united
on this question or The enemy is suing for peace. It takes a plural verb
when it refers to the members of the group considered as individuals, as in
My family are always fighting among themselves or The enemy were showing up
in groups of three or four to turn in their weapons. In British usage,
collective nouns are more often treated as plurals: The government have not
announced a new policy. The team are playing in the test matches next week.
Be careful not to treat a collective noun as both singular and plural in
the same construction. Thus you should say The family is determined to
press its (not their) claim. 2
Collective nouns always refer to living creatures. Similar inanimate
nouns, such as furniture and luggage, differ in that they cannot be counted
individually. That is why you cannot buy a furniture or a luggage. These
nouns are usually called mass nouns or noncount nouns. They always take a
singular verb: The bedroom furniture was on sale.


From http://www.bartleby.com/68/46/246.html:

AGREEMENT OF SUBJECTS AND VERBS 2: COLLECTIVE NOUN PHRASES FOLLOWED BY
PLURAL NOUNS

Proximity (attraction), notional agreement, and logic conspire here to make
the verb choice plural: A number of us are going to attend. A flock of
starlings were making loud conversation. But at Conversational levels the
doubts of the speaker and in Edited English the stylebook¡¦s unwavering rule
that subjects and verbs must agree in number can sometimes produce the
singular: A pair of hits in the bottom of the ninth usually turns the
trick. Either singular or plural is Standard in such constructions,
although the plural usually seems more natural and comfortable.

From http://www.bartleby.com/68/28/4128.html:

NOTIONAL AGREEMENT (NOTIONAL CONCORD)

is the agreement or concord of verbs with their subjects and of pronouns
with their antecedent nouns on the basis of meaning rather than form. If
you think of committee as one entity, then The committee has its agenda; if
you think of committee as representing several people, then The committee
have their agenda. Notional agreement gives us sentences like these from
British English: The government are eager to compromise. Manchester United
are ahead, three to nil. Americans would use is in both sentences, having
different notions of the entities government and athletic team. And these
from American English also illustrate: My admiration and love for her is
without limit. Everybody has their own opinion of the proposal. All these
are usage problems because although no one is confused about what they
mean, strict grammatical agreement of plurals with plural forms and
singulars with singular forms doesn¡¦t occur. Edited English tries usually
to avoid these last structures, and many a Standard-using reader will find
fault with them whenever they notice them. If you saw that one (reader ¡K
they), then you are probably quite able to police your own writing for
agreement problems; if you missed it, you must decide whether your readers
will accept a particular notional agreement without objection or whether
they will insist absolutely on full grammatical concord.

From http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/gramm...ve_nouns.html:

Swan (Practical English Usage, New Edition, Oxford University Press, 1997)
elaborates on this singular/plural usage, and disagrees about treating
collective nouns as both singular and plural in the same construction:

"In British English, singular words like family, team, government, which
refer to groups of people, can be used with either singular or plural verbs
and pronouns.

This team is/are going to lose.
Plural forms are common when the group is considered as a collection of
people doing personal things like deciding, hoping or wanting; and in these
cases we use who, not which, as a relative pronoun. Singular forms (with
which as a relative pronoun) are more common when the group is seen as an
impersonal unit. Compa

My family have decided to move to Nottingham. They think it's a better
place to live.
The average British family has 3.6 members. It is smaller and richer than
50 years ago.
The government, who are hoping to ease export restrictions soon, ¡K
The government, which is elected by a simple majority, ¡K
My firm are wonderful. They do all they can for me.
My firm was founded in the 18th century.
When a group noun is used with a singular determiner (e.g. a/an, each,
every, this, that), singular verbs and pronouns are normal. Compa

The team are full of enthusiasm.
A team which is full of enthusiasm has a better chance of winning.
Sometimes singular and plural forms are mixed:

The group gave its first concert in June and they are already booked up for
the next six months.
Examples of group nouns which can be used with both singular and plural
verbs in British English:

bank
the BBC
choir
class
club
committee
England (e.g. the football team)
family
firm
government
jury
ministry
orchestra
party
public
school
staff
team
union
In American English singular verbs are normally used with most of these
nouns in all cases (though family can have a plural verb). Plural pronouns
can be used:

The team is in Detroit this weekend. They have a good chance of winning."
pp. 526-527

--
Cheers
Robert

------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:48:12 +0300, Graham Mayor wrote:

Can be and often is, but I don't believe it was ever correct. I guess
this
is just another case of evolving usage.

Robert

That just about covers every possibility. It could be summed up as 'anything
goes.'

Terry Farrell

"Robert" wrote in message
...
Here is some more food for thought:

From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nal_agreement:

Formal and notional agreement
In BrE, collective nouns can take either singular (formal agreement) or
plural (notional agreement) verb forms, according to whether the emphasis
is, respectively, on the body as a whole or on the individual members;
compare a committee was appointed ... with the committee were unable to
agree ...[5][6] Compare also Elvis Costello's song, Oliver's Army is here
to stay / Oliver's Army are on their way. Some of these nouns, for example
staff,[7] actually combine with plural verbs most of the time.

In AmE, collective nouns are usually singular in construction: the
committee was unable to agree ... AmE however may use plural pronouns in
agreement with collective nouns: the team take their seats, rather than
the
team takes its seat(s). However, such a sentence would most likely be
recast as the team members take their seats.

The difference occurs for all nouns of multitude, both general terms such
as team and company and proper nouns (for example, where a place name is
used to refer to a sports team). For instance,

B The Clash are a well-known band; AmE: The Clash is a well known band.
B Indianapolis are the champions; AmE: Indianapolis is the champion.

Proper nouns which are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and
BrE; for example, The Beatles are a well-known band; The Colts are the
champions.


From http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/020.html:

Grammar: Traditional Rules, Word Order, Agreement, and Case

¡± 20. collective noun
Some nouns, like committee, clergy, enemy, group, family, and team, refer
to a group but are singular in form. These nouns are called collective
nouns. In American usage, a collective noun takes a singular verb when it
refers to the collection considered as a whole, as in The family was
united
on this question or The enemy is suing for peace. It takes a plural verb
when it refers to the members of the group considered as individuals, as
in
My family are always fighting among themselves or The enemy were showing
up
in groups of three or four to turn in their weapons. In British usage,
collective nouns are more often treated as plurals: The government have
not
announced a new policy. The team are playing in the test matches next
week.
Be careful not to treat a collective noun as both singular and plural in
the same construction. Thus you should say The family is determined to
press its (not their) claim. 2
Collective nouns always refer to living creatures. Similar inanimate
nouns, such as furniture and luggage, differ in that they cannot be
counted
individually. That is why you cannot buy a furniture or a luggage. These
nouns are usually called mass nouns or noncount nouns. They always take a
singular verb: The bedroom furniture was on sale.


From http://www.bartleby.com/68/46/246.html:

AGREEMENT OF SUBJECTS AND VERBS 2: COLLECTIVE NOUN PHRASES FOLLOWED BY
PLURAL NOUNS

Proximity (attraction), notional agreement, and logic conspire here to
make
the verb choice plural: A number of us are going to attend. A flock of
starlings were making loud conversation. But at Conversational levels the
doubts of the speaker and in Edited English the stylebook¡¦s unwavering
rule
that subjects and verbs must agree in number can sometimes produce the
singular: A pair of hits in the bottom of the ninth usually turns the
trick. Either singular or plural is Standard in such constructions,
although the plural usually seems more natural and comfortable.

From http://www.bartleby.com/68/28/4128.html:

NOTIONAL AGREEMENT (NOTIONAL CONCORD)

is the agreement or concord of verbs with their subjects and of pronouns
with their antecedent nouns on the basis of meaning rather than form. If
you think of committee as one entity, then The committee has its agenda;
if
you think of committee as representing several people, then The committee
have their agenda. Notional agreement gives us sentences like these from
British English: The government are eager to compromise. Manchester United
are ahead, three to nil. Americans would use is in both sentences, having
different notions of the entities government and athletic team. And these
from American English also illustrate: My admiration and love for her is
without limit. Everybody has their own opinion of the proposal. All these
are usage problems because although no one is confused about what they
mean, strict grammatical agreement of plurals with plural forms and
singulars with singular forms doesn¡¦t occur. Edited English tries usually
to avoid these last structures, and many a Standard-using reader will find
fault with them whenever they notice them. If you saw that one (reader ¡K
they), then you are probably quite able to police your own writing for
agreement problems; if you missed it, you must decide whether your readers
will accept a particular notional agreement without objection or whether
they will insist absolutely on full grammatical concord.

From http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/gramm...ve_nouns.html:

Swan (Practical English Usage, New Edition, Oxford University Press, 1997)
elaborates on this singular/plural usage, and disagrees about treating
collective nouns as both singular and plural in the same construction:

"In British English, singular words like family, team, government, which
refer to groups of people, can be used with either singular or plural
verbs
and pronouns.

This team is/are going to lose.
Plural forms are common when the group is considered as a collection of
people doing personal things like deciding, hoping or wanting; and in
these
cases we use who, not which, as a relative pronoun. Singular forms (with
which as a relative pronoun) are more common when the group is seen as an
impersonal unit. Compa

My family have decided to move to Nottingham. They think it's a better
place to live.
The average British family has 3.6 members. It is smaller and richer than
50 years ago.
The government, who are hoping to ease export restrictions soon, ¡K
The government, which is elected by a simple majority, ¡K
My firm are wonderful. They do all they can for me.
My firm was founded in the 18th century.
When a group noun is used with a singular determiner (e.g. a/an, each,
every, this, that), singular verbs and pronouns are normal. Compa

The team are full of enthusiasm.
A team which is full of enthusiasm has a better chance of winning.
Sometimes singular and plural forms are mixed:

The group gave its first concert in June and they are already booked up
for
the next six months.
Examples of group nouns which can be used with both singular and plural
verbs in British English:

bank
the BBC
choir
class
club
committee
England (e.g. the football team)
family
firm
government
jury
ministry
orchestra
party
public
school
staff
team
union
In American English singular verbs are normally used with most of these
nouns in all cases (though family can have a plural verb). Plural pronouns
can be used:

The team is in Detroit this weekend. They have a good chance of winning."
pp. 526-527

--
Cheers
Robert

------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:48:12 +0300, Graham Mayor wrote:

Can be and often is, but I don't believe it was ever correct. I guess
this
is just another case of evolving usage.

Terry

Contrary to what Graham seems to believe, usage evolves by its very nature,
historically, and geographically.

And determining what is the current usage in a given area requires deep
statistical and linguistical analysis, which few people are able or willing
to do.

In any case who would bother to follow their recommendations?

Robert

-------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:00:28 +0100, Terry Farrell wrote:

Robert

That just about covers every possibility. It could be summed up as 'anything
goes.'

Terry Farrell

Language evolves - what in my reply would suggest that I believed something
different?
In the UK, very little attention appears to be paid to the teaching of
English grammar, which was not the case 50 years ago when I was at school.
Then there would have been less confusion. Now we have graduates who cannot
use the mother tongue with any degree of competence.

--

Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web site www.gmayor.com
Word MVP web site http://word.mvps.org


Robert wrote:
Terry

Contrary to what Graham seems to believe, usage evolves by its very
nature, historically, and geographically.

And determining what is the current usage in a given area requires
deep statistical and linguistical analysis, which few people are able
or willing to do.

In any case who would bother to follow their recommendations?

Robert

-------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:00:28 +0100, Terry Farrell wrote:

Robert

That just about covers every possibility. It could be summed up as
'anything goes.'

Terry Farrell

Just to get back to basics. My problem is that my version of Word (in UK
English) suggests alternatives for both:

The staff is happy.

The staff are happy.

That is not a matter of compatibility or usage. It is broken. How can a
user stop it (without disabling the rule altogether)?

And for my sins, I was dragged through Latin but the teacher decided one of
us should give up, so I did. Indeed, my matriculation year was the first
where a classical language was not required. There was a general fear
amongst the dons that they were admitting the barbarians.

Bill

"Graham Mayor" wrote in message
...
Language evolves - what in my reply would suggest that I believed
something different?
In the UK, very little attention appears to be paid to the teaching of
English grammar, which was not the case 50 years ago when I was at school.
Then there would have been less confusion. Now we have graduates who
cannot use the mother tongue with any degree of competence.

--

Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web site www.gmayor.com
Word MVP web site http://word.mvps.org


Robert wrote:
Terry

Contrary to what Graham seems to believe, usage evolves by its very
nature, historically, and geographically.

And determining what is the current usage in a given area requires
deep statistical and linguistical analysis, which few people are able
or willing to do.

In any case who would bother to follow their recommendations?

Robert

-------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:00:28 +0100, Terry Farrell wrote:

Robert

That just about covers every possibility. It could be summed up as
'anything goes.'

Terry Farrell