Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 'invisible crew' who have 35 seconds to prevent a Eurovision blunder

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 58 posts

Re: The 'invisible crew' who have 35 seconds to prevent a Eurovision blunder

#31

Post by OJFord »

StevenWaterman wrote: post #8
gbalduzzi wrote: post #6

I know this is not the right place for this but english is not my first language. How is "have" the correct verb here? Shouldn't it be "has"? Like, the crew is the subject, and it has 35 seconds. I'm trying to understand what I'm missing here, because I'm sure BBC did not make a mistake

Both "has" and "have" sound ok to me here as a native speaker. Both of these can describe the same event: - The cows have 10 seconds to enter the field - The herd has 10 seconds to enter the field In the case of "crew", the word can either mean - The people who are part of the crew (like "the cows") - The crew as a collective unit (like "the herd") Which is why both sound ok

You would have to say 'which has', but then yes it works (and is more correct than 'who have').

Re: The 'invisible crew' who have 35 seconds to prevent a Eurovision blunder

#33

Post by OJFord »

aitchnyu wrote: post #22
gbalduzzi wrote: post #6

I know this is not the right place for this but english is not my first language. How is "have" the correct verb here? Shouldn't it be "has"? Like, the crew is the subject, and it has 35 seconds. I'm trying to understand what I'm missing here, because I'm sure BBC did not make a mistake

I once read a Wikiepedia article starting with "Pink Floyd are..." and immediately hit edit. I saw a banner comment saying its correct according to British English. Since then I've noticed lots of "Company are...". I also wonder why India uses "Company is...". My guess is Britain adopted it after Indian independence.

It's often proscribed, many style guides say 'the company is/has', sort of de-personifying it to the entity rather than the people that work there.

I think it's an Americanizm to say e.g. 'Apple have released a new iPhone'.

Re: The 'invisible crew' who have 35 seconds to prevent a Eurovision blunder

#34

Post by senko »

gbalduzzi wrote: post #6

I know this is not the right place for this but english is not my first language. How is "have" the correct verb here? Shouldn't it be "has"? Like, the crew is the subject, and it has 35 seconds. I'm trying to understand what I'm missing here, because I'm sure BBC did not make a mistake

Using plural for companies, orgs or teams is common in British English.

For example "Apple have released a new iPhone".

Re: The 'invisible crew' who have 35 seconds to prevent a Eurovision blunder

#35

Post by Thorrez »

gbalduzzi wrote: post #6

I know this is not the right place for this but english is not my first language. How is "have" the correct verb here? Shouldn't it be "has"? Like, the crew is the subject, and it has 35 seconds. I'm trying to understand what I'm missing here, because I'm sure BBC did not make a mistake

Ok:

"The crew who have..."

"The crew that have..."

"The crew which have..."

"The crew that has..."

"The crew which has..."

Not ok:

"The crew who has..."

The reason that last one isn't ok is that "who" refers to a person or people, not an object. "Crew" can either refer to a singular object or a plural group of people. Put together, "crew who" must refer to a plural group of people, so needs a verb that matches plural.

Re: The 'invisible crew' who have 35 seconds to prevent a Eurovision blunder

#36

Post by idw »

gbalduzzi wrote: post #6

I know this is not the right place for this but english is not my first language. How is "have" the correct verb here? Shouldn't it be "has"? Like, the crew is the subject, and it has 35 seconds. I'm trying to understand what I'm missing here, because I'm sure BBC did not make a mistake

Sometimes the BBC does make mistakes but this seems to fit their style guide:

"Treat collective nouns - companies, governments and other bodies - as singular. There are some exceptions: ... Sports teams - although they are singular in their role as business concerns (eg: Arsenal has declared an increase in profits) Rock/pop groups"

So treating a crew, like a team, as plural makes sense.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/grammar-spelling-punctu...

Both approaches are regularly used, so it is now more of a style choice, hence being in the style guide.

The Economist style guide says Brits are more likely to use plural and Americans singular but writers need to make a judgement in context: https://www.economist.com/johnson/2010/09/20/style-guide-ent...

Re: The 'invisible crew' who have 35 seconds to prevent a Eurovision blunder

#37

Post by KineticLensman »

jon-wood wrote: post #11

I'd really love an alternative broadcast which shows the set changes rather than the postcards, I'm sure the people making the postcards are very good at what they do but they're almost designed to be as bland as possible, I'd much rather see a well oiled team perform crazy feats to get the stage set.

> I'd much rather see a well oiled team perform crazy feats to get the stage set

Not quite the same, but I witnessed a performance of Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds where there was a complete failure of the stage systems about 15 minutes before the end. All the audio-visuals died and the mics cut off, screens died, animatronics went still, complete silence on the stage and only ambient light.

For about 10-15 seconds there was stunned silence on the stage and then one of the drummers in the orchestra started drumming his part again. A couple of the other musicians joined and quickly there was music. From our seat we could see the stage's equivalent of mission control - three people who'd been quietly sipping their coffee while the playlists unfolded. They went into overdrive like movie hackers trying to enter some system before the corporation goons reached them. They quickly got the audio side back and then worked on the lights and screens. They left the giant Martian war tripod to last but even that was moving within a few minutes. It was one of the most impressive system recoveries I've seen.

Re: The 'invisible crew' who have 35 seconds to prevent a Eurovision blunder

#38

Post by foldr »

OJFord wrote: post #33
aitchnyu wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once read a Wikiepedia article starting with "Pink Floyd are..." and immediately hit edit. I saw a banner comment saying its correct according to British English. Since then I've noticed lots of "Company are...". I also wonder why India uses "Company is...". My guess is Britain adopted it after Indian independence.

It's often proscribed, many style guides say 'the company is / has ', sort of de-personifying it to the entity rather than the people that work there. I think it's an Americanizm to say e.g. 'Apple have released a new iPhone'.

No, it’s actually more common to do this in British English than in American English, so it’s a “Britism” if anything.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Brit...

Re: The 'invisible crew' who have 35 seconds to prevent a Eurovision blunder

#39

Post by poizan42 »

christudor wrote: post #15
gbalduzzi wrote: post #6

I know this is not the right place for this but english is not my first language. How is "have" the correct verb here? Shouldn't it be "has"? Like, the crew is the subject, and it has 35 seconds. I'm trying to understand what I'm missing here, because I'm sure BBC did not make a mistake

If a noun denotes a group of people – even if it's technically a singular noun – it's okay (but not compulsory) to use a plural verb. The sentences 'Real Madrid have performed well this year' and 'Real Madrid has performed well this year' are both grammatically acceptable, and probably used roughly the same amount. A related example is the word 'none' (= 'not one'). Technically it should govern a singular verb (e.g.…

"none" is saying something about all of the players, so how would that be singular? The word "none" is always used in a plural context, like if there is only one player then you won't say "none of the player"
Post reply on HN