Hacker News Reader

Comment by Stratoscope | Hacker News Reader

That is a fun set of examples, and most of the answers are right on. But not this one:

> 12. Led Zeppelin did not steal the opening riff of its rock anthem “Stairway to Heaven,” a federal jury ruled here, giving the band a victory in a copyright case in which millions of dollars were at stake.

> O.K., this may be a fine point. But since what was at stake was the total amount, rather than the individual dollars or even the individual millions, I would make it “was at stake.”

Millions were at stake. Dollars were at stake.

Just putting the two together doesn't magically make it singular. No one would ever say "millions of dollars was at stake."

Copyediting should reflect how people actually speak and write.

View on HN

> Copyediting should reflect how people actually speak and write.

Why? Genuine question. Written language is always different than spoken language, and this is not unique to English. People make mistakes all the time when speaking, particularly native speakers. [0]

Upon initial reading, I would say one -could- say "was" or "were". But when I read it aloud, I found "was" was more natural.

In most situations this isn't that big of a deal, but we are talking about copy editors here...

> how people actually speak and write.

When I grew up religiously reading books, I wrote and spoke a lot more book-like than I do now. Which version of me is "how people actually speak and write"?

Is Standard American English "how people actually speak and write"? Or is it fine to use varieties of English like Appalachian English or African-American Vernacular English?

Who decides the above? English doesn't have a language council like Korean or French. There is no all-authoritative entity to ask.

[0]: /r/boneappletea is both humorous and infuriating for examples of this. https://www.reddit.com/r/BoneAppleTea/comments/doscha/starch...

Thank you and the others who replied. Obviously I was wrong to say no one would ever use "was" here. Live and learn! :-)

But that’s exactly how I would say it: “millions of dollars was at stake.” To me, what you propose seems like a mistake someone just learning English would make.

Give it a specific sum: you wouldn’t say “two million dollars were at stake,” you would say “two million dollars was at stake”. I admit it’s pretty weird, but you also say “two million dollars is a lot of money,” not “two million dollars are a lot of money.”

Me, too, "[M]illions of dollars was at stake," is exactly how I would state that.

IIRC this may be a difference between British English and American English... Whereas a Briton might say “Led Zeppelin were on stage”, referring to the multiple band members, an American would say “Led Zeppelin was on stage”, referring to the band as the single entity. I can’t remember where I read about this though.

You’re correct! They take it pretty far: for instance companies are collective nouns, so they would say “Apple are releasing the new iPhone.” In not sure where it stops, but I’m vaguely suspicious that countries are singular nouns.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com