Long Term Benefits Of TAX & ID Evidence Submission from LL

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

... "

but Linden Lab don't operate

". Linden Lab in singular, so it should be 'doesn't' and not 'don't'.

---

As a non-native user of English, I must say that collective nouns are a bit difficult; such as company names for example. Not critizing anybody here, just asking to learn.  :matte-motes-smile:

 

 

So, a question, are the following correct?

1. Linden Lab is moving to a new office.

-- meaning that Linden Lab as whole single company will be moving, thus singular "is"

2. Linden Lab are disputing about new Second Life avatar.

-- some employees are having discussions about the avatar, thus plural "are"

I guess in both British and American English the first sentence is correct. How about the second sentence?

I have read in many places that in British English the plural "are" is the preferred [correct] one when referring to the people in the company doing something. I have seen a mention that in spoken British English even in the second sentence one often hears singular "is" being [incorrectly] used.

I wonder how the second sentence would be in American English usage - "is" or "are"?

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

... "

but Linden Lab don't operate

". Linden Lab in singular, so it should be 'doesn't' and not 'don't'.

---

As a non-native user of English, I must say that collective nouns are a bit difficult; such as company names for example. Not critizing anybody here, just asking to learn.  :matte-motes-smile:

 

 

So, a question, are the following correct?

1.

Linden Lab

is

moving to a new office.

-- meaning that Linden Lab as whole single company will be moving, thus singular "is"

2.

Linden Lab

are

disputing about new Second Life avatar.

-- some employees are having discussions about the avatar, thus plural "are"

I guess in both British and American English the first sentence is correct. How about the second sentence?

I have read in many places that in British English the plural "are" is the preferred [correct] one when referring to the people in the company doing something. I have seen a mention that in spoken British English even in the second sentence one often hears singular "is" being [incorrectly] used.

I wonder how the second sentence would be in American English usage - "is" or "are"?

---

It's quite simple really.  Linden Lab is a singular entity and, therefore, you should always use the singular "is" when referring to it.  If you're talking about employees of Linden Lab, you'd have to make that clear from the start, otherwise the sentence isn't going to make much sense no matter what verb you use.  So sentence #2 should actually read something like this... "Linden Lab Employees are in dispute over the new Second Life avatar," or, "The Lindens are disputing over Avatar 2.0."

...Dres

ETA: I forgot to say that sentence #1 is written correctly.

[Freya Mokusei]

(As I said before, to Dresden) Duly noted.

[LillyBeth Filth]

---

AnaSmith12 wrote:

My case is no different from the others, my husband tried to process credit for paypal, one in 01/09 and another on 01/11, we note the delay of payment, then decided to search here in the forum if there was someone with the same problem when I found the post Lilibeth Filth (thank you), he immediately phoned Linden lab, and was informed that both payments were on hold until the completion of Tax Form, Linden lab sent the form he filled in and sent back to LL.

My question:

Anybody here who sent the completed form back to LL had any news about when they go to process payments on hold? They gave some time to pay upon receipt of the form? Will we have to wait another 5 working days? I'm worried, because as many here have expenses RL and SL, and are all delayed.

My very Thank you all, and I hope we have solved our problems.

Ana.

---

Hi Ana

I have had the same clarification that the account is "as was" and that pending payments will be issued as normal but they did not say how long.

Like you, technically mine is overdue and I suspect LL are probably busy dealing with the rather out of the blue TAX form demand.

I would assume worse case scenario and say 5 working days from the day you got the notice that your account was in order.

I say this because, I was told my credit would be cleared as soon as they got the photo ID scan but other than the email to confirm my account is in order, nothing else has been sent.

If you really are struggling I suggest telephoning them rather than opening another ticket.

Good Luck!

[AnaSmith12]

Hi Lillybeth, thanks for your answer, I will ask my Husband to call them later, and as soon as I have news, i will share with all of you.

Good Luck to us!

hugs,

Ana.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

It's quite simple really.

---

No it's not:)

From AUE

If you treat 'government' as plural, it means you're considering the individual members of the government. So 'the government are killing the people' means that the members of parliament are going out at night with knives and guns and murdering people one by one. This probably isn't what you mean.

You can avoid the issue by writing it as "members of parliament" as you suggested, but that doesn't mean that's the only correct way.

To me it sounds very English, but I've always thought English sounded more pleasing than American.

[Coby Foden]

It appears that the Americans mostly use singular pronoun/verb with collective nouns, whereas the British use both, either singular or plural depending on the meaning to be conveyed. Using singular treats the entity as a single acting unit, using plural treats the entity as a collection of inviduals acting.

http://grammar.about.com/od/c/g/collnounterm.htm says:

"It is possible for singular collective nouns to be followed either by a singular or a plural verb form:

    The audience was delighted with the performance.
    The audience were delighted with the performance.

The first of these options is normal in American English. In British English both options are found. [Geoffrey Leech, A Glossary of English Grammar. Edinburgh Univ. Press, 2006]"

http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.fi/2007/07/collective-noun-agreement.html says:

"As a Yank in the UK working for an American company with a bunch of English co-workers, nothing causes more drama back in HQ than press releases drafted by our UK-reared staff. The UK team prefers (Our Company Name) ARE. The Americans edit it all back to (Our Company Name) IS. Long-winded e-mail discussions ensue."

Drama :smileymad: in HQ over language!  :smileysurprised: :smileyvery-happy:

 

[Phil Deakins]

Whilst in some instances it may be technically correct to treat a singular noun, such as 'goverment' or 'audience' as both singular and plural, your best bet is to treat Dresden's reply to you as being correct.

In use, some such singular nouns (collective nouns) sound ok when treated as a plural - both 'government' and 'audience' sound ok as a plural - but singular always sound right when treated as singular. For instance, in use, "the audience were applauding" sounds right and gives the impression of a group of people. 'The audience was applauding' also sounds right and, since an audience is a group of people, the same understanding is achieved. Both are correct. 'Rookery' is an example of a singular (collective) noun that represents multiple entities - a group of rooks. It sounds wrong to say 'the rookery were very noisy', so that a wrong use of treating a singular noun as a plural.

So you can't go wrong when treating singular (collective) nouns as singular, because they always sound right, but you can go wrong when treating them as plural, because they are often wrong. In other words, treat Dresden's reply as being totally correct, and you won't go wrong.

The case in this thread - Linden Lab - was a singular noun that doesn't even represent a group of people. It's a company - singular - and not a collective noun. 'The people at Linden Lab' or 'Linden Lab employees' are examples of the right way to refer to the group of Linden Lab people in the plural. People often think the company is called Linden Labs, with an s which usually indicates a plural, but it's still singular - a company - single.

[Dresden Ceriano]

Interesting... it never would have occurred to me that the British would consider a company name to be a collective noun, but I can see now where that would make sense in certain situations.  As an American, it simply sounds better to me to say the #2 sentence in one of the ways which I had rewritten it, but that doesn't make the use of "are" wrong.  Although, if I were forced to use the plural, I'd probably still rewrite it as, "Linden Lab are in dispute over the new Second Life avatar," because I just feel as if that more successfully gets the point across.

Thanks for bringing this up, Coby... learning new things is always good.

...Dres

[Zag Magic]

Waves Lilly with all your success, why do you sound so bitter ? Maybe you should spend more time dancing in SL, and not think about the money so much.  

 

The main reason most of my SL friends haven't been cashing out all along, was the taxes are just too high. Makes it all not worth it. Albeit we are in the EU, where we have VAT ( Value Added Tax ), attached to our pay info, and the banks are very keen on all this. Taxes on our SL earnings aren't new for us. Depends also what country you're in, some pay more than others. I believe Denmark and Sweden want the most.

 

Your assumption that people don't need the money is wrong. Why do you want to divide people? To think we're all not kind hearted good honest people is ridiculous. No one I know came here for the "fame and glory" or the "feel good factor", that is just sad. When we started SL as free players, we were helped along by mentors. People shared what they made with the community. We remade, and rebuilt things. This is how I was taught to make things in SL. Free scripts, free effects, free prims. Still I needed upload money. The way I understood all this was that SL is made up of mostly open source code, much like the internet. It would be hard to do anything without those who offered for free to everyone what they have made.

 

Many of my friends have created the greatest best things in SL, and have never asked for any money. Its all free, and with full permissions to this day. Free isn't always the best, so to charge much more hopefully you get new things with better quality, service, upgrades and the like. Just like in everyday real world life, some people have no income. SL is free to join, and you get free avatars to start, maybe a few free things along the way. No damage done, might even make people want better expensive new things.

 

Obviously this is a real life business for you, how you pay for your housing and food. If the marketplace changed like it has for many of us, would you still come, play, dance and be part of the community ? Would it still be worth it to you ? Your comment, "Without the economy,  SL would not be here. Fact". No, without the economy "you" would not be here. Or so it seems.

 

Thieves and stolen software aside, your last words should have been your first. "The most creative people are those that don't have the NEED to sell what they create.. As soon as there is an obligation to create or a pressure to produce for an income, all those creative juices start to dry up. The most beautiful art has come from those that were poor and did it for the sake of art." 

 

There need be only one company making money from second life, and so far they have kept us floating.

 

[Phil Deakins]

We British do not consider a company name as a collective noun.

What often happens is that company names that have an 's' at the end are treated as plural, simply because it sounds better because of the 's'. We often add an 's' to company names that don't have one, and then treat it as plural, as I'm sure you do in the U.S., but they are never seen as collective nouns.

Examples: There's a supermarket chain here called Asda, which was bought by Walmart not many years ago, so I'll use the name Walmart for the examples. There's no 's' at the end so it's ideal for this.

Both 'Walmart was open all night' and 'Walmarts were open all night' are common uses here, even when the plural version refers to just one store.

But for Coby, your first reply is good - treat company names in the singular, which they are, and she won't go wrong.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

We British do

not

consider a company name as a collective noun.

---

While you might be British and I am not, I have to disagree. It really depends on the situation.

Here a nice and very clear example I found on the internet:

Matthew, I spent a good part of the day yesterday in Liverpool John Lennon airport, unfortunately. But it wasn’t a total loss. I learned two important things. An airport is plural and it’s important to announce there are no announcments. As in: “Liverpool John Lennon airport would like to confirm they do not make flight announcements.” This announcement is repeated about every five minutes.

How strange (and incorrect) would it be if the message was “Liverpool John Lennon airport would like to confirm it does not make flight announcements” ?

[Phil Deakins]

That's an inteersting example, but it still doesn't mean that we treat company names as collective nouns or plural. We don't. They are singular.

An airport is singular - always. Your quote mixes two thing up - the noun 'airport' and the company name, 'Liverpool John Lennon Airport'. So the conclusion that airports are plural because the company name in the announcement is treated as a plural is completely wrong. It's one of those logical fallacies.

Although the meaning in the annoujncement comes across, the wording is actually wrong. It should have been worded something like, 'We at Liverpool .... do not make ...', or 'Liverpool Airport does not make...'.

So learning that airports are plural in Britain from that announcement in nonsense.

Copmpany names are singular - always were and always will be.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

Replace "airport" with any company name and review.

Of course Liverpool Airport does not make announcements. That would mean the building would be speaking to the public. That's exactly the reason why I used that quote, because it's so obvious. Imagine you heard the announcement and you wanted to complain to them not making announcements. You wouldn't complain to it. I've been at Liverpool Airport several times and can picture someone standing in front of the building, complaining to the front facade like a lunatic.

Liverpool Airport is located in Liverpool of course.

I'm really sorry, but to me it all makes perfect sense.

[Phil Deakins]

Of course it makes sense. The intended meaning in the announcement does come across. The announcement is technically incorrect, but the meaning does come across, so it works. The fallacy is that airports are plural here in the UK, which was the conclusion drawn from the technically incorrect announcement. That conclusion is wrong - totally wrong - no shades of grey.

The only times when airports are plural is when more than one airport is meant.

I don't mind replacing 'airport' with any company name, as you suggested. The result is the same. Like airports, company names are singular here in the UK.

 

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

Just to be annoying:

The Gregg Reference Manual by William Sabin says that when using orga­ni­za­tional names, treat them as either sin­gu­lar or plural (but not both). Ordinarily, it sug­gests you treat the name as sin­gu­lar unless you wish to empha­size the indi­vid­u­als who make up the orga­ni­za­tion. In that case, use the plural.

(Yes I did also read the rests of that page and yes I also noticed the American "organization" )

 

But let's forget about companies and let me ask something else then. According to you, can you treat committee, jury, staff, team, family or firm as plural? If you say no, lots of British people will disagree.

[LillyBeth Filth]

---

Zag Magic wrote:

Waves

Lilly with all your success, why do you sound so bitter ? Maybe you should spend more time dancing in SL, and not think about the money so much.  

lol I never once used the word "success"  I work hard and I depend on SL for a large % of my income. So naturally it's a subject I am going to be passionate about.

And success is relevant. Some think being able to pay for their tier makes them successful, others may think being able to pay for their tier and cash out $50.00 is successful.. And on it goes.

I am actually very grateful for SL and LL for you are quite correct,  had it not been for what I have learned over the years whilst in SL then my hobby would not have become my income.

What makes me "bitter" is the amount of people who are up in arms and angry at the RL world and LL for asking them to declare their ID and complete TAX forms and their sense of entitlement as they claim they cannot afford to pay TAX and how it will put them out of business etc...  So then you shouldn't be cashing out. It's not my law. Its just THE law.

And for the record, I  am not talking about this thread or this specific forum but rather, what I have observed since the news broke out about TAX form requirement in general.

The main reason most of my SL friends haven't been cashing out all along, was the taxes are just too high. Makes it all not worth it. Albeit we are in the EU, where we have VAT ( Value Added Tax ), attached to our pay info, and the banks are very keen on all this. Taxes on our SL earnings aren't new for us. Depends also what country you're in, some pay more than others. I believe Denmark and Sweden want the most.

I am from the UK and I don't pay VAT. VAT is applied to the sale of physical goods in England..not digital goods. 

A British person can earn around £7,450 a year before I am taxed and then I am taxed on anything above that threshold. So, people can cashout but as soon as they make over what they know to be their TAX theshold then they need to declare it. Furthermore, I get paid in USD which when converted to the British Pound, is halved. That is a major PITA but I don't kick off about it. It is what it is. If I was living in the USA I would be very happy with my US income but by the time it's halved and I pay my TAX and accountancy fees, I earn a part time income from SL. Just a FYI

 

Your assumption that people don't need the money is wrong. Why do you want to divide people? To think we're all not kind hearted good honest people is ridiculous. No one I know came here for the "fame and glory" or the "feel good factor", that is just sad.

What are you referring to?  What divide?

And WHEN did I say ANYONE was not kind hearted? If you look back, what I said was; 

"

The flip side of the coin is

There are just as honest and kind hearted people who are trying to make an honest living in SL"

For clarification, I am referring to the many people both past and present who made and sold good quality content for free or 1 Linden Dollar and set up stores to do so and by default obtain a status of fame and a following of "the grateful"  

Why they give their skill, time and content away is debatable.. But it clearly wasn't because they needed an income. 

It's not a sin to want or need to make an income in exchange for your work, time and financial investment in software etc.  And neither is it a sin to do all that for free. 

But both of have an effect on any economy and SL (LL) NEEDS an economy.  LL would not be in business if people did not spend money in SL. Period.

When we started SL as free players, we were helped along by mentors. People shared what they made with the community. We remade, and rebuilt things. This is how I was taught to make things in SL. Free scripts, free effects, free prims. Still I needed upload money. The way I understood all this was that SL is made up of mostly open source code, much like the internet. It would be hard to do anything without those who offered for free to everyone what they have made.

Yes, it was exactly the same for well, everyone even back in 2004 albeit back then the freebies were few and far between and there was only a handful of people who actually ran serious businesses too.

Many of my friends have created the greatest best things in SL, and have never asked for any money. Its all free, and with full permissions to this day. Free isn't always the best, so to charge much more hopefully you get new things with better quality, service, upgrades and the like. Just like in everyday real world life, some people have no income. SL is free to join, and you get free avatars to start, maybe a few free things along the way. No damage done, might even make people want better expensive new things.

Obviously this is a real life business for you, how you pay for your housing and food. If the marketplace changed like it has for many of us, would you still come, play, dance and be part of the community ? Would it still be worth it to you ? Your comment, "Without the economy,  SL would not be here. Fact". No, without the economy "you" would not be here. Or so it seems.

Thieves and stolen software aside, your last words should have been your first. "The most creative people are those that don't have the NEED to sell what they create.. As soon as there is an obligation to create or a pressure to produce for an income, all those creative juices start to dry up. The most beautiful art has come from those that were poor and did it for the sake of art." 

 There need be only one company making money from second life, and so far they have kept us floating.

*Laughs* and how do you believe that company your refer to ie:Linden Labs are making money Zag?

lol..It certainly isn't from freebie accounts sharing freebies on a LL owned Sandbox.

LL need people who make goods to sell for real money. They make money from people who rent land from them, who make and SELL content on the Marketplace and then they make it again from those people who sell their L$ on Lindex.

It would appear you have glanced over my post and made some snap decisions about my character or the point I am trying to make.

Perhaps you think I am an evil greedy capitalist were as I might make the mistake of thinking you're a freeloader who has a sense of entitlement that "life should be free man!"

Both are broad generalizations that neither of us should be making about each other based on a forum post

 

 

 

 

---

 

[Phil Deakins]

I already gave an example of how a company name (Walmart) could be treated as a plural, so the first part of your post was irrelevant. It doesn't mean that Walmart is a plural though. It's not.

You seem to have the idea that I'm insisting that collective nouns must always be treated in the singular and never in the plural. But I didn't say that collective nouns can't be treated as plural - Walmart was an example I gave of a one that can be treated as both singular and plural. I did say that some collective nouns can't be treated as plural, and I gave an example of one (rookery). So there's no need for me to answer your question about "committee, jury, staff, team, family or firm".

I've suggested to Coby, who is a non-native english speaker, that she treats collective nouns in the singular, regardless of whether or not it can be used in the plural sense. That way she won't go wrong, because they are all singular and treating them as singular is always right, whereas treating them as plural is sometimes right but not always. Perhaps you've misunderstood that and thought I was saying that all collective nouns must always be treated in the singuilar sense by everyone.

[Phil Deakins]

---

LillyBeth Filth wrote:

What makes me "bitter" is the amount of people who are up in arms and angry at the RL world and LL for asking them to declare their ID and complete TAX forms and their sense of entitlement as they claim they cannot afford to pay TAX and how it will put them out of business etc... 

So then you shouldn't be cashing out

. It's not my law. Its just THE law. 

 

---

I completely agree (about those who say they can't afford to pay taxes).

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

The Wallmart example is not relevant. The way you used the plural WallmartS, means you were talking about several stores, not the single company as a whole.

My whole point was and still is, a collective noun used singularly can have a different meaning than that very same noun used plurally. I think the goverment example I gave illustrated that well. Here's another one, just because It has John Lennon in it again.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

The Wallmart example is not relevant. The way you used the plural WallmartS, means you were talking about several stores, not the single company as a whole.

My whole point was and still is, a collective noun used singularly can have a different meaning than that very same noun used plurally. I think the goverment example I gave illustrated that well.

Here's another one

, just because It has John Lennon in it again.

---

No. The fact that I added the 's' in my Walmart example does not mean that multiple stores were meant. The example could have meant multiple stores and it could also have meant a single store. It would depend on the rest of the discussion. E.g:-

"Where were you at 2 a.m. this morning?"

"I was at Walmarts. They were open all night"

That uses 'Walmarts' (with the pluralising 's' added, and with "They" (plural) to back it up) but only a single store is meant. Remember we're talking about here in Britain. I've lived here all my life and I am reasonably familiar with english as it is used here

 

I might agree that a collective noun used singularly can have a different meaning than that very same noun used plurally. I haven'y actually suggested anything different. But I'd be interested to see an example though. I can't think of one off hand. What I've said is that collective nouns are singular, and, when used in the singular sense, you can't go wrong because the meaning will always come across. That's what I've suggested to Coby. I didn't read the whole page that you linked to, so I don't know what answer the author gave, by my answer is this:-

Both "the staff is" and "the staff are" are correct. It's not an example of the uses of plural and singular giving different meanings. The first implies the staff members because it's a collective noun, and the use of "are" in the second one states that it's the members of staff who are meant. So, if Coby used the singular, she would be correct, and everyone would understand what she meant. Collective nouns are singular and using them as such can't go wrong.

A possible example of singular and plural giving a different meaning is, "the rookeries are noisy" and "the rookery is noisy". The first can't mean anything other than more than one rookery, whereas the second can't mean anything other than  justone rookery. But that required pluralising 'rookery', which I don't think is quite what you meant.

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

No. The fact that I added the 's' in my Walmart example does not mean that multiple stores were meant. The example could have meant multiple stores and it could also have meant a single store. It would depend on the rest of the discussion. E.g:-

"Where were you at 2 a.m. this morning?"

"I was at Walmarts. They were open all night"

That uses 'Walmarts' (with the pluralising 's' added, and with "They" (plural) to back it up) but only a single store is meant.

 Remember we're talking about here in Britain. I've lived here all my life and I am reasonably familiar with english as it is used here

---

I missed the last part of your initial post about "Walmarts". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would write that as "Walmart's", as in "Walmart's store". That is most definitely not plural.

 

 

---

I might agree that

a collective noun used singularly can have a different meaning than that very same noun used plurally.

I haven'y actually suggested anything different. But I'd be interested to see an example though. I can't think of one off hand.

---

I already gave an example. Half of it was buried in a link , so here it is:

 

 

If you treat 'government' as singular, it means you're considering the actions of the government as a whole. So 'the government is killing the people' means that the government is, for example, ordering the army to kill people, or withholding food so that people starve to death.

If you treat 'government' as plural, it means you're considering the individual members of the government. So 'the government are killing the people' means that the members of parliament are going out at night with knives and guns and murdering people one by one. This probably isn't what you mean.

---

Both "the staff is" and "the staff are" are correct. It's not an example of the uses of plural and singular giving different meanings. The first implies the staff members because it's a collective noun, and the use of "are" in the second one states that it's the members of staff who are meant. So, if Coby used the singular, she would be correct, and everyone would understand what she meant. Collective nouns are singular and using them as such can't go wrong.

---

From the link I posted: If the collective noun (staff) is acting as a single unit, use the singular verb: “The staff is very efficient.” You could also write: "The staff are very efficient." I would say the former means the staff as a team is very efficient, the latter means every single member of the staff is very efficient. If the latter is the case, so is the former, so you could always use the singular form. However, you do leave out some vital information about the individuals that way.

For example, if someone said "We won't fire anyone, the staff is very efficient", one could reply: "We can fire some people who aren't doing anything". If the plural was used: "The staff are very efficient", that wouldn't be a valid answer.

[LillyBeth Filth]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

LillyBeth Filth wrote:

What makes me "bitter" is the amount of people who are up in arms and angry at the RL world and LL for asking them to declare their ID and complete TAX forms and their sense of entitlement as they claim they cannot afford to pay TAX and how it will put them out of business etc... 

So then you shouldn't be cashing out

. It's not my law. Its just THE law. 

 

---

I completely agree (about those who say they can't afford to pay taxes).

---

How dare you agree!? !!!!11111oneoneone!! lol

:matte-motes-big-grin-wink:

Sorry if I came over a bit snippy in the other posts about whether "everyone" will have to compete these forms.

My good SL friend (And only! Can you believe that? :matte-motes-tongue: ) says she has had her account balance cashed out recently and they haven't asked her for anything.  I don't know her financial details but I know she lives in the USA and is not a big business type so maybe you're correct.

I don't know what the criteria is for the requirement of these forms. All I know all US based e-commerce websites that invite merchants to sell their digital goods on their platform, that it's a requirement to complete them before they even allow you to publish content for sale.

If you do not they won't allow you to set up or they will deduct 30% from your 50% royalties leaving you with 20%! lol

Turbosquid.com does this as I was required to send the form in via real mail and it would take six weeks and so I just gave up trying to sell on their website.

Contentparadise.com just had me email the PDF  W-8BEN form and that was that.

It's something "they" have to do in order to trade as an e-commerce business that makes payments in US dollars to other people, from what I understand. 

So, my theory was that essentially, what LL are doing is exactly the same since they took over the SL Marketplace AND allow people to cash out in US dollars.

The process may not be as linear as places like those I mentioned but the end result amounts to the same thing.

[Phil Deakins]

My replies are in red this time (red does not imply me shouting or anything like that) 

 

---

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

No. The fact that I added the 's' in my Walmart example does not mean that multiple stores were meant. The example could have meant multiple stores and it could also have meant a single store. It would depend on the rest of the discussion. E.g:-

"Where were you at 2 a.m. this morning?"

"I was at Walmarts. They were open all night"

That uses 'Walmarts' (with the pluralising 's' added, and with "They" (plural) to back it up) but only a single store is meant.

 Remember we're talking about here in Britain. I've lived here all my life and I am reasonably familiar with english as it is used here

---

I missed the last part of your initial post about "Walmarts". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would write that as "Walmart's", as in "Walmart's store". That is most definitely not plural.

To be honest, I'm not at all sure about the apostrophe in cases like this. You could be right.

 

---

I might agree that

a collective noun used singularly can have a different meaning than that very same noun used plurally.

I haven'y actually suggested anything different. But I'd be interested to see an example though. I can't think of one off hand.

---

I already gave an example. Half of it was buried in a link , so here it is:

If you treat 'government' as singular, it means you're considering the actions of the government as a whole. So

'the government is killing the people'

means that the government is, for example, ordering the army to kill people, or withholding food so that people starve to death.

If you treat 'government' as plural, it means you're considering the individual members of the government. So

'the government are killing the people'

means that the members of parliament are going out at night with knives and guns and murdering people one by one. This probably isn't what you mean.

I read that example but

I don't agree with the writer that the plural and singular make it mean different things. Implicit in the word 'government' is that it means the people -

the whole group of individuals

- who form the government, because government itself is just a concept that can't actually do anything. So both statements mean the same thing - that it's about the whole group of individuals who form the government. They both mean exactly the same thing.

.

---

Both "the staff is" and "the staff are" are correct. It's not an example of the uses of plural and singular giving different meanings. The first implies the staff members because it's a collective noun, and the use of "are" in the second one states that it's the members of staff who are meant. So, if Coby used the singular, she would be correct, and everyone would understand what she meant. Collective nouns are singular and using them as such can't go wrong.

---

From the link I posted:

If the collective noun (staff) is acting as a single unit, use the singular verb: “The staff is very efficient.”

You could also write:

"The staff are very efficient."

I would say the former means the staff as a team is very efficient, the latter means every single member of the staff is very efficient. If the latter is the case, so is the former, so you could always use the singular form. However, you do leave out some vital information about the individuals that way.

For example, if someone said "We won't fire anyone, the staff is very efficient", one could reply: "We can fire some people who aren't doing anything". If the plural was used: "The staff are very efficient", that wouldn't be a valid answer.

That is an example of singular and plural versions meaning something a little different. The singular version means the staff as a whole is efficient although some members of it may not be. It could also mean that there are no members of staff who are inefficient. So, if whoever says it wants it to be perfectly understood, s/he should write it a little differently to impart the exact meaning 

The plural version does mean every individual member of staff. It's a good example.

---

In Coby's case, she could write the singular unless she meant that the staff as a whole are efficient but not every individual is, in which case she could write it a little differently. "Most members of staff are efficient", for instance. So I still suggest that Coby follows Dresden's reply to her, and she won't go wrong.

[Phil Deakins]

I didn't notice you being a "bit snippy" I didn't think you'd replied to that post but my memory isn't top notch.

It's interesting that a friend of yours cashed out without the need of any forms. I've got a test $500 cashout pending, and I'm waiting to see if it arrives or not. I haven't seen any email from LL about forms (I'm in the UK) but that doesn't mean I haven't received one. I get thousands of spam emails every day and I certainly don't go through the bulk of them that are filtered into my Junk folder. I'll let the 5-8 working days go by before I start looking into it.