Beat me to it 
Here’s a link for reference though 
https://github.com/progit/progit/issues/769
1 Like
For a bit more history, there is this: https://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/129776/after_controversy_torvalds_begins_work_git_/
2 Likes
Hey folks,
So there’s a few points to this!
First thing: there’s no ‘right’ way to write this
The beautiful/painful thing about English is that there are very few hard grammatical ‘rules’ to follow.
Sure, there are grammar guides which will pretend that you can be right and wrong about all manner of things. But most of them were written in the 20s and 30s, and the fact that there’s more than one grammar guide sort of proves that there isn’t a single right and wrong.
This is a nice example of descriptivism vs prescriptivism
The eternal battle in linguistics is between descriptivists and prescriptivists.
Descriptivists (at the extreme end) believe that if people understand exactly what you mean, then you’re using language right. You basically can’t make a mistake in your native language. For example, if you say “we was walking to the shops” everyone still knows what you mean, so it’s not a mistake.
Prescriptivists (at the extreme end) believe that if you’re not following some exact rules, you’re ungrammatical. So even saying ‘who’ when you mean ‘whom’ would be a cardinal sin.
We’re descriptivists, but not extreme ones
In this case, no-one misunderstands what the headline means. So although we could phrase it differently, it isn’t wrong.
You can definitely make mistakes in English grammar. But generally speaking, non-standard usage isn’t wrong, it’s just non-standard. Language evolves all the time, and always will. What was non-standard 30 years ago will be hopelessly old fashioned in 30 years’ time.
We wouldn’t say ‘we was opening a Monzo account’, but we’re fine with a little flexibility.
Slightly long-winded, but hopefully gives a little context. Thanks for asking: I’m always happy to get nerdy about words!
8 Likes
Which is all fine, except that “Why don’t Monzo have branches?” just doesn’t make sense. There aren’t multiple Monzos, and the people at Monzo themselves as a collective don’t have branches. That’s why there is a material difference between ‘don’t’ and ‘doesn’t’ in the English language – because they inherently impart different meaning.
I get the point that some people believe all that’s needed is some kind of understanding of the general point, but the general point has to make sense, surely?
3 Likes
It makes sense to me 
1 Like
I guess my point is: The general point is understandable, but the language that conveys it, objectively means something else.
In my head that adds up to not making sense.
It feels a bit dissonant to me as I don’t really subscribe to the organisation = plural thing in this context. But I understand what it means and can’t get worked up about it.
1 Like
Why are there no Monzo bank branches?
1 Like
Branches? Nah! ?
Laughed too hard at this.
4 Likes
Ah, and now we’re talking about whether a company name is a singular or collective noun. Again, this isn’t a rule in English grammar, it’s up to each company to decide for themselves.
So you can say Monzo is, which is the singular noun. Or you can say Monzo are, which is the collective because it treats Monzo as a group rather than a single thing.
We usually go with the collective version because we want to emphasise that we’re not a single monolithic entity; we’re a group of people working together to build a bank.
That works in the same way that ‘people’ is plural even though you can be talking about one particular people, ie you say French people are XYZ, not French people is… unless you’re Ali G.
You’ll also see that we say ‘We’ when we’re talking about ourselves on the website – which means it makes sense that we’d use the collective elsewhere too.
Hope that makes sense!
9 Likes
Genuinely read that in your voice 
1 Like
Makes perfect sense, you’ve explained it well and I agree with your logic. It still jars just as much as someone singing G♭ when the music asks for F ♯, but that’s just me I guess.
3 Likes
For me it’s contextual. Some interesting thoughts:
I’d say “Monzo is the bank that I use” - never “Monzo are the bank that I use”. I suspect @hashbridge would say the same - though I’m willing to be proven wrong!
But then I’d also say “Monzo’s the bank I use” (singular) “they’re brilliant” (plural). That’s probably against all the rules!
And it sounds right to read “At Monzo, we’re thinking about…” - or even “The Monzo team were battling through logo updates like crazy”…
Isn’t language amazing? 
4 Likes
You’re absolutely right – it’s not a hard rule, which is why I said we usually go with the collective 
There are times when one or the other just sounds awkward. To some people, the ‘doesn’t/don’t’ issue here is one of those times.
This is why we’re descriptivists. If we had a proper rule on which to use, we’d end up writing really awkward things to stay ‘correct’. That isn’t how language works, and it misses the fundamental point of words – to make a connection and move somebody. On that point, I love this quote from Stephen Fry. It’s something of a mission statement for me:
There are all kinds of pedants around with more time to read and imitate Lynne Truss and John Humphrys than to write poems, love-letters, novels and stories it seems. They whip out their Sharpies and take away and add apostrophes from public signs, shake their heads at prepositions which end sentences and mutter at split infinitives and misspellings, but do they bubble and froth and slobber and cream with joy at language? Do they ever let the tripping of the tips of their tongues against the tops of their teeth transport them to giddy euphoric bliss? Do they ever yoke impossible words together for the sound-sex of it? Do they use language to seduce, charm, excite, please, affirm and tickle those they talk to? Do they? I doubt it. They’re too farting busy sneering at a greengrocer’s less than perfect use of the apostrophe. Well sod them to Hades. They think they’re guardians of language. They’re no more guardians of language than the Kennel Club is the guardian of dogkind.
4 Likes
I’m realise (hope?) you’re not calling me a pedant, but my riposte to the fantastic Mr. Fry would be John Humphries:
Language is more than a tool for expressing ourselves. It acts as a mirror to our world, reflecting back to us the way we live. It reflects our attitudes about the way we see things and how we are seen by others: in public life; in politics and commerce; in advertising and marketing; in broadcasting and journalism. Yet the prevailing wisdom about language seems to be that “anything goes”.
Word by word, we are at risk of dragging our language down to the lowest common denominator and we do so at the cost of its most precious qualities: subtlety and precision. If we’re happy to let our common public language be used in this way, communication will be reduced to a narrow range of basic meanings.
That, of course, would be rather convenient for the snake-oil salesmen, unscrupulous estate agents and (dare I say it?) even some politicians who might prefer not to be pinned down to anything too precise. But why should the rest of us settle for the lowest common denominator communication?
What for Stephen is pedantry, is, for some of us, a joy in correctly and, as much as possible, precisely articulating a thought or concept with no ambiguity.
(Of course I don’t wield a Sharpie!)
I can sympathise with both points of view. There is no need to lose the joy of language through using it correctly though.
I think there is an inevitable simplification going on but it’s a shame that few recognise the difference between say incredible and amazing.
In my opinion Fry is being a tad disingenuous, as his vocabulary is enormous and he weilds it with precision and panache.
1 Like
There speaks the marketing man!
I think the fundamental point of words is to communicate. Making a connection and moving are icing on the cake.
1 Like
Have to disagree there – what you’re calling simplification is the opposite. There are more words in English than ever before, but how we use some of them has changed (as it always has and always will).
To take your example, the fact that most people don’t recognise the difference between incredible and amazing means that to all intents and purposes there isn’t one.
And yes, for sure, it’s easy for someone with Fry’s writing ability to preach about the power of language. But I think the point he’s making overall is that panache is at least as important as precision.
For us, as a regulated bank, both matter a great deal. We have to be accurate in what we say, and incredibly careful that we don’t mislead anyone. But we also know that people aren’t always rational, especially when it comes to money. If we’re too dry or technical then we’ll turn them off, and they won’t pay attention to the important stuff. Accurate information that no-one reads isn’t a lot of use!
2 Likes
But that’s my point - there was a difference, it’s why we had two different words. I lament that loss. It’s a loss of precision.
But largely I agree with you, give me panache any time, just don’t give me pidgin. (yes you Banks, I’ve never managed to finish Feersum Endjinn, I just want to throw it at the wall)