It must be SOOOO cool to know everything.
I'm curious, Jeremy, were there any men in your family?
Please try to remember, Jeremy, that each time you have come here to "correct" me you have not only been in
correct yourself, but you have added further blunders of your own [mis-identifying both a clause (on another thread) and a gerund (on this thread)--not to mention improper apostrophe use on this thread about apostrophes, etc.
Oh, and the next time you take quotes directly out of The Elements of Style
(i.e., "I will drown and no one will save me," etc.), at least have the decency to provide quotations around the material and cite your reference ... rather than trying to pass-off the material as your own
There must be some kind of curse on the name Jeremy
Jack, a corporation may or may not be a collection of people. But the corporation in isolation is not a person. It is not an animate being. A corporation, based on my definition, cannot possess. It is just like the house or the hat in your examples. A corporation cannot be ascribed the characteristics of a live being.
I agree that a corportation represents one or many people. And while I agree that a corporation is not a sentient being itself, per se, a corporation is still represented by
people who most definitely can
possess many things. Hence the appropriate use of apostrophes to signify such possession.
Just because Churchill may have been addressing a body of students doesn't preclude a drunken stupor. Some of his best known lines came while drunk.
Here's another grammatical pet peeve. Use of the singular when referring to multiples. It happens all the time both in speech and in writing. Chuck Westfall did it in his talk with DPReview on the new Canon 1 DX: "There's a couple of things we......" Simply atrocious.
Perhaps the most common example of this is, "Here's a hundred dollars ..."