Aircraft is plural

armornut

    I watched a video awhile ago, the topic was how far back in time could an english speaking person go, the video was narrated by a Brit, and still be understood. Interestingly people today would have almost zero understanding of language spoken in the 1300s, minimal understanding in the late 1500s, and only into the late 1700s would you be able to communicate the basics for survival.

 

One way to test yourself is to listen to, or read, some Shakespeare dramas, methinks.

As far as good grammar goes, I think English instruction should bring back diagramming sentences.  It's a useful way to show kids the "why" of speech and writing.  It could help a speaker understand why it's "between you and me", for example, and reduce the likelihood that he'll overcompensate for the times he used the object form in the wrong place, by saying, "between you and I".  

Speaking of "as far as", that's another grammatical construction that is misused.  It's "as far as [something] goes" or "is concerned'.  When I hear people in the media who speak for a living misuse that, it drives me nuts.  I want to be able to reach through the TV or radio, grab the speaker by the lapels, shake him, and say, "Goes!  As far as it goes!"

Again, language does change over time; that's why we don't speak Old English today.  But I think that instruction has gotten very sloppy, and that doesn't help matters.

Eaglecash867

 

 

gregbale

Reminded me of the old Andy Griffith routine: "What it was, was...." One least favorite, being heard more widely these days, is 'ex-specially.' But the one that really pops my cork...heard all-too-often from newcasters and even military and scientific types who should know better...is ...NUKE-yuh-LER.

 

 

That reminds me...something that really annoys the hell out of me when watching training videos at work is that one member of our training staff has a particular fondness for saying "excedra" every few sentences, instead of saying "et cetera".  My problem with that is that very few people commonly use that in a sentence, so why does someone who doesn't even know what the word actually is, insist on trying to use it so often?  Drives me nuts!  If you don't know a word, its perfectly fine not to use it. 

I had a high school Biology teacher that used to tell us that the center of a cell is called the "NUKE-yuh-LUS".  

 

I notice a language change that is softening consonents in in the middle of words.  Examples are di-ent, who-ent, coo-ent.  It is Ds and Ts that seem to be softened or even eliminated.

If I am remembering correctly, one of my old bosses (who was originally from the UK) claimed that the abbreviation for "pounds" should be "lb" and not "lbs" because "lb" was an abbreviation for the Latin "Libre" (or "Libre ponds",or something like that) which was already a plural.

gregbale

Reminded me of the old Andy Griffith routine: "What it was, was...." One least favorite, being heard more widely these days, is 'ex-specially.' But the one that really pops my cork...heard all-too-often from newcasters and even military and scientific types who should know better...is ...NUKE-yuh-LER.

That reminds me...something that really annoys the hell out of me when watching training videos at work is that one member of our training staff has a particular fondness for saying "excedra" every few sentences, instead of saying "et cetera".  My problem with that is that very few people commonly use that in a sentence, so why does someone who doesn't even know what the word actually is, insist on trying to use it so often?  Drives me nuts!  If you don't know a word, its perfectly fine not to use it. 

I had a high school Biology teacher that used to tell us that the center of a cell is called the "NUKE-yuh-LUS".  

    I watched a video awhile ago, the topic was how far back in time could an english speaking person go, the video was narrated by a Brit, and still be understood. Interestingly people today would have almost zero understanding of language spoken in the 1300s, minimal understanding in the late 1500s, and only into the late 1700s would you be able to communicate the basics for survival.

MJames70

Language changes, though. That doesn't make it lazy or sloppy. Language serves us, not we language. Another example, when referring to those little gaming cubes - it used to be one die, two or more dice. Now, dice is considered acceptable regardless of the number...one dice, two dice... 

Language changes, but in the presence of less-than-mediocre instruction, it changes in ways that indicate a certain lack of mental discipline on the part of the speakers.

Dodgy

gregbale There are people who say 'aircrafts,' just as there are people who will say 'sheeps' and 'fishes.' Beyond a certain point, as long as you know what they mean, what does it matter? The really sad part is that these days even 'professionals' in the 'communications' industry can't get grammar, syntax or pronunciation right much of the time...and apparently there are no better-informed higher ups to instruct them otherwise...so much of the public has no 'standard' to go by. [End of 'old guy' rant. Now where's my juice box....? ]  

Hearing you Greg, from one old guy to another, or 'bloke', as we Antipodeans say......

And you can add another bloke to the list...it saddens me.  Every day I read, at work, reports written by people of my own age & background, who occupy responsible positions, and whose "command" of the English language is actually more like a suggestion.  They don't know the difference between "affect" and "effect", or between "sat" and "sitting" e.g. "I was sat at the back of the train" - really?  Who sat you there?  The use of "there", "their", and "they're", or "where" and "were" appears entirely random.  And the use of the word "issue" instead of "problem" e.g. "he has mental health issues" really makes my blood boil.

OK, I'm going to take a tablet and have a lie down, now.  Yes, thank you, nurse...

Eaglecash867

How about using "is", twice in a row?  I hear that all the time.

"The thing of it is, is..." 

Or "alls".

"Alls I'm trying to say is..." 

Reminded me of the old Andy Griffith routine:

"What it was, was...."

One least favorite, being heard more widely these days, is 'ex-specially.'

But the one that really pops my cork...heard all-too-often from newscasters and even military and scientific types who should know better...is

...NUKE-yuh-LER.

The most annoying form of talking today is Up-Talking. They all sound like their statements are questions,Mostly young people up to 40

Also people who "fry" the end of their sentences 

Don Stauffer

The language change the bugs me today is the insistance of adding a pronoun after the noun that is the subject of the sentence.

My sister she went to the store.

The low, it is moving off to the northeast.

This bill it will bring many advantages to the workers.

 

 

And usually said by people with at least a four year degree.

And don't forget the interviews with most of the college educated sports stars of today.

I don't know if many can remember the great Ebonics exercise in Oakland years ago. Was easier to teach "getto" than English.  Seems to have spread somewhat since then.

How about using "is", twice in a row?  I hear that all the time.

"The thing of it is, is..." 

Or "alls".

"Alls I'm trying to say is..." 

The language change the bugs me today is the insistance of adding a pronoun after the noun that is the subject of the sentence.

My sister she went to the store.

The low, it is moving off to the northeast.

This bill it will bring many advantages to the workers.

gregbale

There are people who say 'aircrafts,' just as there are people who will say 'sheeps' and 'fishes.' Beyond a certain point, as long as you know what they mean, what does it matter?

The really sad part is that these days even 'professionals' in the 'communications' industry can't get grammar, syntax or pronunciation right much of the time...and apparently there are no better-informed higher ups to instruct them otherwise...so much of the public has no 'standard' to go by.

[End of 'old guy' rant. Now where's my juice box....? ]

 

Hearing you Greg, from one old guy to another, or 'bloke', as we Antipodeans say......

Eaglecash867

What is the plural of moose? Bang Head

"There's one moose...and there's another moose."

armornut

   1 hippopotamus

 2 hippopotomi???

 

What is the plural of moose? 

   1 hippopotamus

 2 hippopotomi???

Slightly off-topic, but grammar is something that has all sorts of class distinctions attached to it, which really doesn't make a lot of sense.

For instance, "won't" is perfectly acceptable, "ain't" is equated by many with tractor caps and missing teeth. 

seastallion53

I keep hearing people on various documentary shows refer to more than 1 flying machine as aircrafts.Where did this come from,aircrafts is not a word.Aircraft is plural and singular.

 

I will usually watch these shows while drinking a bunch of beers. 

MJames70

Language changes, though. That doesn't make it lazy or sloppy. Language serves us, not we language. Another example, when referring to those little gaming cubes - it used to be one die, two or more dice. Now, dice is considered acceptable regardless of the number...one dice, two dice...

 

True, but nobody intermixing those is a paid "expert" on a documentary about dice.  

Language changes, though. That doesn't make it lazy or sloppy. Language serves us, not we language. Another example, when referring to those little gaming cubes - it used to be one die, two or more dice. Now, dice is considered acceptable regardless of the number...one dice, two dice...

seastallion53

I keep hearing people on various documentary shows refer to more than 1 flying machine as aircrafts.Where did this come from,aircrafts is not a word.Aircraft is plural and singular.

Really?

      You should see the words that pop up on my closed captioned T.V. I always thought that to type or program a computer to generate the words in an electronic medium, you had to know how to spell even basic words. Guess I was wrong.

     Because I traveled so much when I was younger( Employment) I use Both, the ( British?) spelling of words and American English. Sometimes an Australian phrase or word will sneak in there as well. I actually cannot read half of what C.C. says on the Telly. So now I am learning to Lip Read!

      No, Folks, I was Not born here. I was a Furriner till I enlisted, then they told me that through my childhood, Because I was adopted at Ellis Island, I wasn't a citizen! Until I got sworn in with the Oath of Citizinship and the Naval Swear in!

 Doesn't matter-I grew up speaking English, Sicilian and Austro -German. Had to forget those last two by Grandpa's order. We're in America Now. One important thing, We learned how to spell correctly!

 My biggest peeve is a certain group of folks of all color, can't seem to get it right. It's ASK, not AKS !

An aircraft is any flying machine- airship/blimp/dirigible, balloon, glider, airplane, helicopter and I believe even kite (there were early man-carrying kites flown from warships).  There were national organizations (I think they still exist) about aircraft that kind of agreed on nomenclature.

There are people who say 'aircrafts,' just as there are people who will say 'sheeps' and 'fishes.' Beyond a certain point, as long as you know what they mean, what does it matter?

The really sad part is that these days even 'professionals' in the 'communications' industry can't get grammar, syntax or pronunciation right much of the time...and apparently there are no better-informed higher ups to instruct them otherwise...so much of the public has no 'standard' to go by.

[End of 'old guy' rant. Now where's my juice box....? ]

Exactly,the RH-53D had 6 blades generating 100,000 v static electricity,40 crew and passengers.my welcome package to HM-14 said it is the biggest,baddest,meanist helicopter in the free world.I enjoyed crewing them alot.

Hello!

But those Seastallions definitely were no "choppers", right?

Have a nice day

Paweł

ikar01

I haven't heard that word yet, been lucky I guess.

In all the squadrons I have been in or had around me, aircraft was the word used regardless of how many ship were involved, from one to an entire wing.  Almost nobody used the word airplane either although "ship/ships" was common;y used also.  I have no idea where that started.

 

Just a guess, from the airship/ derrigible.era.  They  "floated" in the air. No one could see any wings tonight support their flight.