Forum: Author Hangout

or crew's attitudes.

I think Crumbly's question is: Would it be?

crew's attitudes or crew's attitude

Usually, which verb you use depends on two things: whether you consider the collective noun to be a single unit or to be made up of individuals, and whether you're American or British.

Even though I'm American, I think of 'crew' as being a collective noun (i.e. it uses the singular case to refer to everyone aboard), thus I'd prefer "crew's lives", and adding the "of" just makes the entire sentence weaker, such as using "the survival of the crew".

The actual sentence, if anyone wants to pick the first-draft, uncorrected version, apart, is:

That demonstrates that, rather than being a risk to a crew's lives, allowing your AIs to act independently motivates them to try harder.

Actually, it would probably work just as well with:

That demonstrates that, rather than being a risk to the crew's survival, allowing your AIs to act independently motivates them to try harder

That sounds better, because it removes the competing singular "crew" and the contrasting plural "lives", without the awkward addition of an "of" phrasing.

... and she agrees completely with me. :-)

Though it makes "crew's lives" especially problematic, because while the entire crew is at risk, only selected crew members are likely to actually perish. In that case, do you use the collective noun "crew's lives" (to represent the risk they all face) or the singular "crews' lives" (to represent those who'll pay the penalty)?

Logic would insist on the first, since the sentence is discussing the risk to everyone, but I doubt everyone would use that form. :(

"crews' lives"

That definitely means multiple collections, e.g. multiple ships, each with its own crew.

Okay, now we're really getting into problematic situation, as the story in question is actually discussing two separate ships, but is using 'crew' to refer to the 'combined' crew, shared between the two ships (i.e. they alternate daily/weekly assignments).

I understand the distinction between the two forms, and only used "crews' lives" (initially) to emphasis the confusion over the different forms, but as always, I like to keep my plots as confusing as possible. 'D

do you use the collective noun "crew's lives" (to represent the risk they all face) or the singular "crews' lives" (to represent those who'll pay the penalty)?

First, the second one it talking about more than one crew (crew vs crews). I believe you are asking about "crew."

"The crew's lives" is probably what you want. "The crew's life" would be the crew as a whole, not the individuals making up the crew.

The crew does not share one life.

You're thinking about individual members of the crew. In the "crew's life" version, it would be referring to them as a whole. Like "The crew's life existed on the whim of the captain."

As Grammar Girl said, it depends on how you're referring to the collective noun. In Crumbly's case, he most likely means "crew's lives."

As Grammar Girl said, it depends on how you're referring to the collective noun. In Crumbly's case, he most likely means "crew's lives."

Precisely, but when using your test, it can get confusing pretty quickly.

Your comments amount to "telling" me things I already know - and which were clarified in the remaining few sentences of my post.

He specifically labeled it "@Switch", but he hit the 'reply' button simply so it would copy the quote.

But, to answer the point, it's generally assumed, in any shipwreck, that you'll have survivors. However, when dealing with spaceships, it's unlikely that anyone would survive long without an escape shuttle, and even then, they're not expected to travel between distant stars.

But more specifically, the point came up because I suggested my 'crew' consisted of multiple ships, which confused the entire argument, rending sensible answers unlikely. :(

Actually, I had the "@Switch" in my post which was then included in his quote of me.

Sorry, I didn't check your original message, assuming you'd missed the text attribution. It's not often someone includes the automatic attribution when they respond to someone.

Now I'm uncomfortable with my wording, 'I had the "@Switch" ...'

I knew right away that you highlighted the part of the post that had the "@Switch" in it. I thought it was appropriate because it gave all the information: That you were replying to something I said. The system works.

Let's ALL say the system's automatic attributions are convenient but sometimes cause communications mix-ups - and end this exchange here?

I think many of us have had the same problem, where a particular response generates a comment directed towards the original person. It's not an uncommon problem.

which confused the entire argument, rending sensible answers unlikely. :(

I'd say that describes how the majority of flame-wars start. :-)

The crew's life on board was all fun and games. Then the ship sank and the crew drowned. Only the chief mate, Bruce Murray, survived. Lucky Bruce was on shore leave and visiting a grammar course for advanced learners.

Good one. I'll have to have that tattooed somewhere, just so I don't forget it.

I've been sipping glasses of some fine crus while observing this discussion.

While on a round-the-world cruise?

AJ

Since there is no clear consensus, maybe being more verbose would help? Something along the line of

The lives of the crews aboard both ships are at risk...

In the work in question (since I both started the thread and introduced the 'multiple crews' theory), the story makes a point of the two crews joining together as a single 'larger crew' occupying two ships.

I wouldn't use such a definition in any other use (such as two Queen Anne English vessels), but I was trying to explain how the usage complicated my own arguments.

So that would mean the crews within the flotilla are at risk. I believe you can use flotilla for space going ships and not only water bound ships. The early onset Alzheimer's is kicking in again.

Flotilla (or fleet) implies a great many ships (two full squadrons or more for a flotilla), rather than just a couple traveling together for convenience sakes.

I am looking forward to seeing how you actually word this when you get around to posting the story.

The last version I quoted above (you may have to hunt for it) is the final* version, baring editing changes. 'D

As usual, most questions get answered in the first half-dozen to a dozen answers, after which we mostly just argue among ourselves about minor points that don't affect what shows up in print.

Hairstyle: a crews cut, or maybe a crews crew cut. Or crew's cut or crew's crew cut, or crews' cut or crews' crew cut. One crew's cut, two or more crews' cut...

If the entire crew gets the exact same hair cut, at the exact same time every time they do, then yeah. 'D But I'd go with a crew's cut, since crew is a singular verb referring to everyone in the crew, and cut refers to the crew, not each individual member's haircut.

To me that is illogical because a crew (being a collective) does not have hair to be cut.

I wouldn't worry about it too much, I can't imagine a time when anyone would actually use that phrase in a story. It was an extreme example, meant to prove a point, but after stating the obvious, I weighed in on a largely meaningless example usage.