| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stillnosheep
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 2068
Location: eslcafe
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:13 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
From the American Heritage:
3. pl. staffs.
This usage is not just American. An example can be found here:
http://www.tssa.org. |
The plural (like the singular) is staff. "Staffs" refers to a multiple of (plural) staff.
With apologies to the above poster. We assume that you're from the US. You can't help it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stillnosheep
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 2068
Location: eslcafe
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ie. There are three staff here. There are two staff there. The staff there are suberb.
In the above case (and similar cases)the reference to staffs may be justified (and ancient!).
_____________
MOO MOO! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
taikibansei
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Posts: 811
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, you crafty devil--in your 'quote' of me, you changed my link from the home page for the "Transport Salaried Staffs' Association" to something quite random--simply brilliant.
"The plural (like the singular) is staff. "Staffs" refers to a multiple of (plural) staff."
Not sure I understand your, uh, rebuttal. "Staffs" refers simply to a multiple of "staff." E.g., "The Rhode Island and Hingham office staffs hosted several hundred visitors during the Eastern Yacht Sales Fall Open Houses on Saturday, September 28, 2002"--two separate "staffs" of undetermined number.
If I remember correctly, you had written that there was no such usage of the word; I simply pointed out that there is. If you indeed agree with me, then why are we arguing?
"With apologies to the above poster. We assume that you're from the US. You can't help it."
Yeah, you sure showed me--why are we arguing about this again? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
king kakipi
Joined: 16 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
taikibansei wrote-
[quote="lajzar"] king kakipi wrote:
Eleckid
I think a legitimate use for staffs is when you are talking about the staffs at many different branch offices. Kind of like how fishes is only used when talking about different kinds of fish.
Well, I didn`t write that so more care when quoting please.
Thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
king kakipi
Joined: 16 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| .....or else I will come round and hit you with one of my staffs!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
taikibansei
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Posts: 811
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| king kakipi wrote: |
Well, I didn`t write that so more care when quoting please.
Thank you. |
Right, you (echoing stillnosleep & joannda) wrote this gem:
"I think the plural becomes staffs only when you are talking about stick-like objects...."
The poster I quoted disagreed, noting correctly:
"...a legitimate use for staffs is when you are talking about the staffs at many different branch offices. "
I wrote in to agree with this statement--and also to ask why you guys waste so much time playing grammar police on these boards (I actually edited it to make it sound less harsh...). I mean, really, stillnosleep responds twice without reading my initial post (which he apparently agreed with!), and now you're posting two more times about a darn mis-attribution which made you come out better than you deserve.
Classic stuff.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnosheep
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 2068
Location: eslcafe
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| taikibansei wrote: |
Oh, you crafty devil--in your 'quote' of me, you changed my link from the home page for the "Transport Salaried Staffs' Association" to something quite random--simply brilliant. |
Yup. Somehow the .org got deleted. Correct address is http://www.tssa.org.uk
| taikibansei wrote: |
"The plural (like the singular) is staff. "Staffs" refers to a multiple of (plural) staff."
Not sure I understand your, uh, rebuttal. "Staffs" refers simply to a multiple of "staff." E.g., "The Rhode Island and Hingham office staffs hosted several hundred visitors during the Eastern Yacht Sales Fall Open Houses on Saturday, September 28, 2002"--two separate "staffs" of undetermined number. |
I'm very sure that I understand what you claim to be unsure about.
The original point was whether or not two or more members of staff at the same school should be referred to as 'staffs' (sic) or 'staff'.
They should be referred to as staff.
Other posters have made the valid point that when referring to multiple cases of (plural) staff then 'staffs' (cc 'fishes') is perfectly good English.
The website that you list (of The Transport Salaried Staffs' Association) refers to Staffs in this sense and they are correct to do so.
Last edited by stillnosheep on Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:51 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
taikibansei
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Posts: 811
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
From stillnosheep:
"Other posters have made the valid point that when referring to multiple cases of (plural) staff then 'staffs' (cc 'fishes') is perfectly good English."
Other posters...like lazjar and (drum roll please) myself. Read my darn post again.
"The website that you list (of The Transport And Salaried Staffs' Association) refers to Staffs in this sense and they are correct to do so."
Oh, so I did get it right?! Golly....
Darn trolls.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnosheep
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 2068
Location: eslcafe
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| taikibansei wrote: |
| king kakipi wrote: |
Well, I didn`t write that so more care when quoting please.
Thank you. |
Right, you (echoing stillnosleep & joannda) wrote this gem:
|
I didn't notice anybody echoing me tackysenseless, and as for gems... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
taikibansei
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Posts: 811
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| taikibansei wrote: |
Eleckid
I think a legitimate use for staffs is when you are talking about the staffs at many different branch offices. Kind of like how fishes is only used when talking about different kinds of fish.
Absolutely right...... |
Here again is what I wrote--i.e., I said lajzar was right, then gave a definition from a dictionary to support this assertion. The UK trade union site serves as another (UK) usage example.
Either you're a total idiot, or you're intentionally misreading what I wrote. Either way, continuing this conversation is a waste of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnosheep
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 2068
Location: eslcafe
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| taikibansei wrote: |
From the American Heritage:
3. pl. staffs. a. A group of assistants to a manager, an executive, or another person in authority.
This usage is not just American. An example can be found here:
http://www.tssa.org.uk/
|
You are conflating two differnt usages of the word 'staffs', one of which is legitamate and one of which is not.
The first usage (from American Heritage) refers to a "group of assistants to a manager, an executive, or another person in authority" and in this they are wrong. Correct in this case is "staff".
The second usage (from http://www.tssa.org.uk/) refers to a multiple case of such a (plural) group of staff. In this case the use of "staffs" is correct.
The correct word to use when referring to "a group ..." is 'staff'.
When referring to multiple instances of such a group then the use of 'staffs' is legitimate. Otherwise it isn't.
Over and out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
taikibansei
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Posts: 811
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnosheep wrote: |
| You are conflating two differnt usages of the word 'staffs', one of which is legitamate and one of which is not.. |
Only if you intentionally ignore the first part of my post--i.e., I was also making the point that, when referring to multiple instances of a group, the use of 'staffs' is legitimate. Of course, you know this and are just trying to make trouble.
Oh, and what's with "differnt" and "legitamate"--are those UK spellings? Pretty embarrassing for a troll posing as a board grammar cop.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnosheep
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 2068
Location: eslcafe
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Start making sense.
Of course 'staffs' is legitimate when referring to multiple instances of staff (TSSA).
It is illegitimate when referring to a singular instance of staff (ie as per AH).
The fact that you happened to quote one correct usage of 'staffs' does nothing to negate the fact that you conflated two different usages of the word.
| taikibansei wrote: |
Oh, and what's with "differnt" and "legitamate"--are those UK spellings? Pretty embarrassing for a troll posing as a board grammar cop.... |
lol. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AsiaTraveller
Joined: 24 May 2004
Posts: 908
Location: Singapore, Mumbai, Penang, Denpasar, Berkeley
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnosheep wrote: |
| There are three staff here. There are two staff there. The staff there are suberb. |
That is example of British English usage for (certain) collective nouns.
American English usage:
There are three staff members here. There is a staff of two there. The staff there is superb.
Americans would also never say "staffs" unless there were two (or more) collections of teachers (say, at two different schools): "The staffs at those two schools couldn't be more different in their composition." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnosheep
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 2068
Location: eslcafe
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes Asiagohomeboy
I agree with you
'staffs' is reserved for multiple instances of more than one staff
What's your beef? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
