Conference thebay::joyoflex

    Perhaps because there would be furious letters to The Times complaining
    that it should be "Digital has it now" :-)
                               ---
    
    Again, perhaps because it might fall foul of the Trade Descriptions
    Act which expressly forbids making false claims for any product.
    Specifically, if we can't deliver tomorrow.  But then we're only
    claiming that *we* have it, not that the customer can have it. 
    Hmmm.

    Ah Jeff, that explains the sign at the British Airways check-in
    at Heathrow around Christmas:
    
    "British Airways wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year"
                     ----
    
    Seriously now, what is the correct usage in cases like this? I have
    been searching, but not very successfully. On the radio (BBC) I
    have heard both singular and plural used.

  Yes, Jeff, my query is about the use of what might be called "the
  bureaucratic we" (along the lines of the editorial or royal "we")
  and not about the truth or falsity of the slogan itself.

  Is the slogan even used in the U.K.?

  JP

    I think we've discussed "group plurals" at length somewhere else
    in this file, though don't remember where.  For example the noun
    "government" is strictly singular, though when the implication is
    that of "the people who form the government", then it usually (at
    least on the BBC) takes the plural form of the verb.  So the BBC
    would say "the government were defeated in the House last night",
    whereas I, being perhaps a bit pedantic, would say "was".
    
    Isn't English sloppy?  Most other languages wouldn't let you get
    away with that (niet waar, Rien?)
    
    The "Digital" case is a bit iffy, I would say. To me "were" sounds
    definitely wrong, though I've come to accept the "government are"
    case.
    
    I don't think the slogan is used here.
    
    Jeff.
    

    The real reason is that Digital rarely advertises in the U.K.  Hence
    no need for a catchy slogan.
    
    Jeff.

    I have      we have
    you have    you have
    he has      they have
    
    -Who has it now? 
    -Digital has it now.
    
    We, at Digital, have it now.

How about the imperative: Digital, have it now.

DIGITAL is a business entity (among other things), therefore 'it' HAS it now.

The question is not has/have, but WHAT the 'it' is that we have now and whether
we want what we have, whether we feel we've earned it and if we're too
pitifully guilt ridden to feel we deserve it now that we have it.

Mark

    Since DIGITAL is a collection of people, "DIGITAL have it now".
    
    (is `it' curable?)
    
    (will `they' try to take it away from us?)
    
    And since the `it' is really many configurable networkable products,
    we should say "DIGITAL have them now."  [bleah!]
    
    	RMM
    

    re .9:
    
    I see the 'smiley'. But DIGITAL is a corporation, a legally single
    entity.                                                     ^^^^^^
    
    as for 'it' v.s. 'them' , hmmmmm...                               
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    I believe the "it" refers to THE solution to your problem.
    
    					-Brian
    

    re.10
    
    In the UK Parliament *sit*; in the US Congress *sits*.  Parliament
    are a single entity; Congress is a single entity.

Re: .-1;

Maybe theoretically, Congress "sits". 
Actually, it seems they more often junket. (<== note verbification of noun)

(I want my C-SPAN!)

    	DIGIT'll have it Now??