I'm posting this here mostly so I can make a usage comment:

[conuly]

I would never in my life spontaneously say "The public don't understand" because in my dialect collective nouns like "the public", "the team", "the class", or "the government" don't work that way.

However, what's really amusing here is that the title says "the public don't" but the URL says "the public doesn't", and clearly they need more staff unity on this important issue.

Anyway, don't use logarithmic graphs, people don't understand them.

The public do not understand logarithmic graphs used to portray COVID-19

Comments

[shadowkat]

The logarithmic graphs are really confusing in the New York Times. It looks like the cases are going down and aren't that big a problem, when the Times is saying the exact opposite.

So, yeah, agreed on all of the above. Also is "The public don't understand" good grammar? I read that, and mind hurt and wanted to correct it. I get the slang, but "doesn't" works better from both a rhythm standpoint and a grammar one. The other just doesn't sound right.

[conuly]

"Good grammar" is an illusion, and a bad framework for understanding language. What one speech community considers absolutely normal and unremarkable, another will find grating and weird. What is "grammatical" is, ultimately, what the speakers accept as normal.

In this case, it certainly isn't "slang", but a widely accepted feature of Standard UK English, used by careful and well-educated speakers and writers all the time. It is perfectly grammatical across the pond, both in casual, everyday speech and also in more formal writing.

Lynneguist did a good explanation of this usage: https://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.com/2007/07/collective-noun-agreement.html

[shadowkat]

Well, grammar is actually a set of agreed-upon rules established over a lengthy period of time and created to ensure that we all understand each other. Like math is a bunch of agreed upon rules. Without those rules - we're a tower of babble - and I think an argument can be made that we are rapidly sliding in that direction with the internet. (I'm only half serious about that last point or joking.)

I don't memorize rules well - so go by my gut and sound. If it sounds off, I tend to not use it. This works about 90% of the time.

[conuly]

Grammar is not created. Grammar evolves. That's one reason that different groups of people speak differently - because their own speech communities evolved from the ancestral language (that is, the language spoken a long time ago, NOT the standard dialect spoken today, which is no different from any other dialect or sociolect) in different ways.

I think an argument can be made that we are rapidly sliding in that direction with the internet.

Yes, but not a scientifically valid one that's backed by a solid understanding of linguistics.

I don't memorize rules well - so go by my gut and sound. If it sounds off, I tend to not use it. This works about 90% of the time.

Indeed, this is what every speaker does 100% of the time, and it works 100% of the time. Barring momentary disfluencies or serious language-related disabilities, adults do not make mistakes when speaking their own native language. That's the core principle of linguistics - as fundamental as cell theory in biology.

That's how you and I know that "The public don't" is not acceptable in our speech. Because in America, it isn't. Native speakers of American dialects of English don't do that. It sounds wrong.

Native speakers of British dialects of English think it sounds just fine, because in their dialects it IS just fine.

[ioplokon]

I generally agree, but I think you're underestimating the usage of 'the public don't' in US English. I think the -a ending nudges people towards the plural by analogy, even when they generally use the singular for collective nouns (tho this is anecdotal) + the influence of AAVE irt 'don't'.

[conuly]

What -a ending? In the word "public"?

[ioplokon]

lol yeah sorry; I was thinking public -> publica and like forgot that that's not evident... scratch that part. But I do think singular don't either imported from aave or as an independently occurring part of other US dialects is fairly common.

[marahmarie]

Ah, you caught that, too. The title drove me up a few walls before I made weak flailing motions at my screen and gave up (this was last night. I think after seeing that I just went to bed).

[conuly]

The title's fine, in some dialects if not in mine. I just think it ought to match the URL and it doesn't.

[marahmarie]

It was the "if not in mine" part that got me (it isn't). I didn't realize it was written in UK English or would've adjusted my viewpoint accordingly (I was looking for any reason to, thus the mild flailing).

I could make arguments for it being valid in AAVE in general as that's a good point but the article wasn't written in AAVE so it doesn't really track well to justify it like that.

[elf]

Which is correct:

The public are idiots, or
The public is idiots. (An idiot? Full of idiots? But that's changing the predicate.)

I think the word works as both singular and plural, depending on context, but they picked the wrong one.

(And log scales are ridiculous for this kind of situation for exactly the reasons they discovered - they don't look right for people who aren't trained in them. The facts are there but not presented in a way that raises understanding and has the emotional impact that's intended.)

[conuly]

I think the word works as both singular and plural, depending on context, but they picked the wrong one.

Not in my dialect, but all I care about here is that the headline and the URL should match.

[nineveh_uk]

I feel that this demonstrates aptly (a) that in UK English both are correct*, and (b)the importance of editing for consistence is underrated :-)

*A journalist friend once explained it to me in terms of sports teams, and how one can use one of the other according to the desired effect.

[conuly]

It sounds so jarring to me all the time, but I guess a lot of Americanisms do the same over there.

[dorchadas]

I realized a couple weeks ago that somewhere I picked up the habit of plural verbs for organizations and I have no idea where I got it from. I'm from the American Midwest, so it wasn't my upbringing.

(except with to be. I'll say "the government know," but "the government is")

[halfshellvenus.livejournal.com]

I would never in my life spontaneously say "The public don't understand" because in my dialect collective nouns like "the public", "the team", "the class", or "the government" don't work that way.

I suspect that's because you're American. In general, American English does not work that way!

The British do that, but it seems to overlook the fact that there are singular AND plural forms of words like 'team' and 'class' and 'government'... so, why not save the plural verb for the plural form?

"The team do" will never not sound silly to me...

[conuly]

Yes, I know all that :)

I'm just concerned that the headline and URL should match up.

[halfshellvenus.livejournal.com]

I missed that, somehow. Probably distracted by the first part, and didn't have my reading glasses on.

It IS strange that the title and URL don't match. For Wikipedia, I usually wind up typing in my own 'title' for a link, since it doesn't always pick the best summary. I wonder if this is similar? E.g., a British source for the article, but saved off in the database by an American. ;)