BrockawayBaby (brilliant name - not on so brilliant with singular/plural which is his case in this argument) offers this:

Sarcasm will get you nowhere.
There is several examples of sound helping with grammar:
All of the following is wrong and sounds wrong:
"She are a good actress."
"He likes the way she say her lines."

Hey, Brockaway!

"There is ... examples "? "All of the following (examples) is wrong ..."? Your own sentences contain the same error as your examples - singular/plural confusion.

In the UK the television reporters do it all the time. The cold weather messes up their brains on outside broadcasts. I shouldn't lose any sleep over it, but it isn't correct.

"Their (plural people then) neighbour (one person then) lost 'their' house key".
This then means surely that they should be annoyed with their neighbour because now they can't get into their house because of his mistake.
But in the UK it could mean that the neighbour lost his own house key, ("their" is widely used to mean "his" or "her", very annoyingly) so they (plural therefore the people we started with) can ignore his (the singular neighbour's) problem if they like and leave him to sort it out. The word "their" is used to refer to anyone, singular and plural regardless, so half the time we don't know who is meant by "their".

So the consequences of getting this muddled up are more confusing and the results more devastating as those caused by the examples in the original point made above - whether to say there is or there are when there are two things there - "There are" is certainly correct. The French just say "Il y a ..." and the Germans "Es gibt ..." and there are no further worries! In English we have to be able to count as far as two to sort it out ...

Now how about when there are none at all? Singular or plural? "No one was there" or "No one were there"? We all know the answer. But it gets worse ...

another time ...

Thank you.

I could perhaps have written " who could attempt to refute the case of someone who makes statements without offering any argument to back them up? ".

Perhaps "the Oracle has spoken!" would have been a suitable reaction to Hamish's offering.

It's all a matter of the mood you are in, really.

Brus

Hamish, I would like to congratulate you on the impeccable reasoning you offer for your two statements, but I cannot. Not because it is peccable, but because it is imperceptible. You have supplied none.

Hamish, I would like to congratulate you on the impeccable reasoning you offer for your two statements, but I cannot. Not because it is peccable, but because it is imperceptible. You have supplied none.

If you reckon the BBC doesn't use Standard English then you must acknowledge that there is a Standard English. I cannot vouch for US, Canadian, Australian newsreaders, but in India I have seen and heard the news and have no complaints! In South Africa the SABC used it, and so did the newspapers in my time there.

I did write in my last blurb that the BBC has its problems with singular/plural and relative pronouns, so it is indeed not perfect. But the BBC is trying to be trendy by promoting regional dialect among its staff - poor Joan Bakewell, 'the thinking man's crumpet', is finding herself sidelined, she tells us, by the BBC because she speaks properly. So, point taken: the BBC is no better than the politicians. Where to find Standard English as a benchmark then?

What about published books then? I have read quite a number in my time and can remember none written in English which did not follow Standard English, except where demotic regional dialect is part of the plot, such as Huckleberry Finn. Any thoughts on that?

Try watching or preferably listening to the BBC. They do it. The newsreaders get muddled with singular/plural, and saying "that" when they mean "who/whom/which" but otherwise are fairly good at it. In the UK it is known as the Queen's English, which means Standard English. Learned academics do it.
Today I heard on the radio a woman saying "I've gotta be honest, you was sat there, doing nuffink, know what I mean?" I cannot imagine HM saying this to the PM.

I am really pleased to catch on to your much earlier correspondence on "sneak" and "snuck". As emigres returned Scotsmen, regularly visiting the ancestors in the Highlands, we amuse each other there on winter or rainy nights by conversing in wide-ranging variations on Standard English, telling tales maybe, for example, about how grandpa snuck grandma into the cinema without paying, using this wonderful word, picked up in 1950s Southern Africa, from what we assume is American. We also talk about torriential rain (pronounced torry-en-shul) because one of said it as a child and we thought it was funny, like "anyweny" in place of "anyway". You may shake your heads in disapproval, but in Celtic circles we do this sort of thing for fun. And drink whisky. Which may explain it.

Synesis may not bother you too much, but I sure am pleased to learn that in America you edit it out when it isn't wanted. I have not lost that many nights' sleep over it either, but I make it a point to show it the door whenever an example comes my way and I am in a position to do so. Otherwise I just grumble about it. Syneses! Don't you just hate them!

Good points, Goofy. I agree with much of what you say. Your second point: that we learn our language from our peers - yes, and we keep it up as we move about the world, picking up local accents and idiom as we go, using them when in the company of those who use them, referring to them fondly with others who have been in the same places, amusing each other by 'doing' accents and idioms for entertainment, and language too. When in Rome do as the Romans do. When in Australia you have to speak Oz to be understood, I gather, and in South Africa or Scotland there are brilliant ways to express yourself not used elsewhere. So I agree with you wholeheartedly on that second point of yours, with the caveat that teachers show the way to speak and write Standard English, as this needs to be known too for purely practical reasons: getting employed if nothing else.

There is no need to use it out of context, of course: just as we need not confine ourselves to knowing only one language, we need not confine ourselves to one version of English. You are quite wrong on your first point in that I absolutely do not think we should adhere at all times to just one, standard form. I enjoy regional accents and idioms and derive much pleasure in hearing a wide range of these and national variations departing from standard English. And using them. I can do South African, Glaswegian, Edinburgh, Cornwall, Wales, Australia, India, ...
Did you know there are at least a dozen identifiable forms of Scots English, and a distinct Scots language with hundreds of its own terms? I think I know which is which when I hear a bit spoken. It is like enjoying listening to music.

It is also great fun using the right idiom in the right place. As a teacher teaching language I used Standard English as that was part of that game. On the sports field it was once suggested to me by an American friend that I should exhort my team to "kick ass" in their next match, so I did and he was pleased to hear that they had performed better than ever as a result. Quite hard to do this literally when playing cricket, of course. That is just one example out of thousands over the years. One of the pleasures of looking into this site is to learn so many amusing things about American use of English - even more entertaining than South African. Please do not think I sneer at it - it is great!

So that jibe about Prof Higgins strikes home. He's the one who could tell not only which town you are from, but which street you live in too, just by listening to a sentence or two. Ideal for a languages teacher. I wish! I can do South African cities too, but not streets. Suburbs maybe.

People around the world quickly learn a few phrases and words when they want to and need to: poor street vendors in Bangkok and Cambodia speak English when it means a sale, and it is just a matter of imitation, after all. It has always been a mystery why it was that JFK found it so hard to learn how to say "Ich bin ein Berliner" and pronounce it intelligibly. We all know how well it went down when after six weeks of rehearsal he finally got his chance to say it to a started crowd of German citizens in Berlin. It wasn't very good, was it?

So when it is correct to say "stay seated" to people who might otherwise think "stay sat" will do, and your role is a formal one at that moment, such as an exam invigilator, why not just get it right and show them how it is done? You can say it in a special accent if you want to amuse them or engage their attention. They are not stupid, and will get it. You can express your delight in demotic terms when you give them back their papers with great marks, or whatever they have done, but they may well think less of you for doing so.

Right enough, Derek, I agree wholly with what you say. I reckon that all three arguments above can be summed up by: the job of the teacher (in one part only, among many, many others) is to demonstrate the correct way to express things in English (or indeed any language medium being used). Since writing my last blurb I have heard "you was rubbish on the radio, innit?!" (not addressed to me, of course!). I don't think a student or pupil would bond better with, or follow the plot of, a teacher who spoke in such idiom. "Stay seated" said by an exam invigilator is not unintelligible to a pupil who at home might be told to "stay sat". And it shows him (or her) the way to do it.
Thanks, AnWulf - like the term ebonics. I am going off to look it up.