You're watching use of grammar burn to the ground, as has been the case for decades. And every few years someone will find a new excuse for it. But George W Bush stirred his dirty little fingers in it and decided no child should be left behind. So we can all look forward to a future wherein those of us who are old enough to remember proper grammar in our learnings will be scratching our heads to understand just the simplest of text.

I have noticed more articles with poor grammar lately as if writing is increasingly being outsourced.

At the link from today's post, https://x22report.com/omnipresident-part-3/ I see “elections until now has been” but I'd write “have been”. What I've learned, is “singular 3rd person > has, all others/plural > have”. What am I missing? Some exception, or developing and changing tradition?

You are correct that this example is an error, but let me add a little nuance. There are situations where a noun which looks plural and was originally formed as a plural takes on a sense where it can be used in the singular. "Marbles are fun to play with" but "Marbles is a fun game." The distinction arises when we stop using "marbles" to refer to a collection of objects (a handful of marbles) and instead to refer to a singular concept (a game of marbles).

In some cases, the singular concept completely supplants the plural. "News", for example, was once just a plural form of "new", referring to many new things, but now we always say "the news is bad", not "the news are bad". The same thing happened much more recently to "data": we almost universally say "data is", not "data are", even though the word was formed as the plural of "datum".

In your specific example, we could in theory start to use "elections" in the same kind of singular sense as "news" or "data", but this is not anything like common in today's actual usage. Readers are much more likely to interpret "elections is" as a simple error rather than a deliberate stylistic choice.

Countries/national states mentioned are often referred to as 'she' but the verb goes plural -- I take it they are either 'it' as inanimate themselves or 'they' as all- the-people-they-enclose. Some 'motherland' connection, …?

This is a difference between British and American English. In American English, when referring to a large organization such as a company or a country, you always use the singular. America is, Amazon is, etc. But in British English, you might use either "is" or "are" depending on your specific use case. If you're referring to the organization as an organization, you would still use the singular, but if you're referring to the group of people underlying that organization then you'd use the plural: "British Telecom is a huge company" but "British Telecom are unhappy about their pay cuts."

I sometimes see sentences where 'be' is missing to my eye. (Sorry, can not find an example among latest posts right now). Again: as a rule of thumb, words and expressions shorten with time: syllables in words and words without which thought remains understandable, just drop off. Am I observing this process, or just unkempt postings?

The phenomenon you're referring to is called ellipsis, but I'd need a specific example to say whether you're seeing ellipsis, or simple error, or some other phenomenon such as headline grammar.

Ahoy, MrsCal! Congratulations for speaking (and writing) four languages! I sure wish I could say the same. As for your grammar, trust me, it’s better than most native English-speaking Americans.

BTW, I adore the kingdomofloathing.com and got most of their jokes (you can't be sure what you don't know) and through all their language traps. Thus, all regular offenders like there/their/they're or to/too etc I just 'proofread' through.

Greetings fellow grammar nerds. I discovered something about my own language (Am. Eng) from helping foreigners with theirs. The accent on words that are spelled the same, in which one is a noun and the other is a verb, varies. If the word is a noun, the accent is on the first syllable. If the word is a verb, the accent is on the second syllable. Like conflict. I don't like CONflict. It conFLICTs with my personality. It is pretty consistent. I haven't found an exception yet.

The countries/national states issue regarding third person singular or plural for collective nouns (nouns that describe a group of people or objects) is actually subject to interpretation. In the UK they are taught to use the plural verb form; in the U.S, the collective noun is treated as singular.

Many rules lie this change with time and usage. Often, the fun of knowing rules is strategically breaking them. English is notorious for constantly changing itself.

We have correct Grammer, mostly save it for lawyers and politicians. "Den we got Dat local slang", that's what diversity is about. We got boys and girls and men and women too... and also them others. That's not diversity, dats stupidity.

You are correct.

You spelled "Forsaken1 is the most handsome and informative anon on GAW." wrong..

Hehe

In you first example I would use "have". When using she, ships are often referred to as "she" so are flags. Mind you I am not an English major. I just read alot.

3rd person singular is has...he, she, it has...everything else is have. Don't know if this is an exception...it is just the way it is. Words that indicate many people uses singular despite indicating more than one or plurality...such as club, state, nation, ... so I don't think she would ever have a plural verb. Good luck on your English...I hear it is a hard language...too many exceptions to the rules perhaps.