'The staff IS satisfied' sounds odd in English. You would say 'The staff MEMBER is satisfied' for singular, or 'The staff ARE satisfied' for plural.
Actually, I find "is" to be more natural than "are". "Staff" is both the plural and the singular. I conceive of it much as "group" or "class". So while there are multiple people that comprise the staff, I treat it grammatically as a single unit.
Thus, "the class/group/staff
is attending a seminar."
That said, I don't find it odd to treat staff as a plural either. I would (actually did) use "the staff
are satisfied." I would, however, find "the group are satisfied" to be unnatural.
Regional convention at play here.
I am native English (UK). Staff is a group of persons, unless toubare talking about a pole. I would suggest if you where talking about an individual you would use "staff member". I always associate Staff with a group. I can say "I am staff". As a short cut to "I am a staff member". Word always flags "are staff" as grammatically wrong, but I guess it is refering to "a staff" which is a pole
"Staff" certainly indicates a group of people, but that says nothing about it being singular or plural. "Swarm" is a group of insects but it is definitely a singular noun, even "group" indicates a plurality of things but is grammatically singular. This is just a matter of UK vs US usage: American English only allows singular agreement for collective nouns (like "team", "family", "staff", etc.), while British English contemplates (or even prefers) plural forms.
As an aside "are staff" may be colloquial, but it's correctness has nothing to do with the grammatical number of staff, because in English the verb number is determined by the subject, so "my friends are staff" but "my friend is staff", irrespective of whether "staff" is plural or singular and only dependent on the number of "friend".
Both British and American English use notional and grammatical agreement, although we use it more often in British English. With staff it depends on whether we want to emphasise the group or the members of the group.
Examples: - Midland, whose staff is 56% female... - the staff are happier
Is the sound of Personal right?
I check it in my electric dectionary, it shows me [pɛrzo:na:l] and google translation reads it like this, too, while DL reads it differently in all three vowels, like [pə:sənl].
Or it can be read in both ways?
No, it can't be read in both ways, it is actually how your electric diary and google translation say.
no it isn´t i am a native german speaker and the sound of personal is very strange the stress is on the a.
The computer voice here saying "Personal" is nearly incomprehensible. Sounds like it's been tied in a knot and dragged through autotune.
Listen to Höher! The system approves every word you say with an apple in your mouth and that's what it's sounds like.
Surely crew should only be used in a nautical context.. There's a whole unwritten chapter of the inferno reserved for any manager or business owner who even considers referring to their employees as 'crew'
It's common for the leader of a group of workers to refer to that group as a crew. "I have a good crew" is definitely not an uncommon sentence, at least here in Texas. While I agree that a manager or business owner should not refer to his/her employees (with which he/she does not directly form a team) as his/her crew, it is quite common.
The use of the double negative is also fairly common, but still wrong and still sounds terrible. However, I accept that "crew" might be accepted in some parts of the English-speaking world. Anyone who were to use it in the UK would be mocked for trying to sound gangsta ;)
I only said it's common; I didn't say it was right. I hate the whole "gangsta" mentality (I actually feel a little sick from even typing the word) and I'm happy that there are people that make fun of those that feel the need to behave that way. Sadly, it seems America is becoming more and more infested every second by people with that immature and offensive attitude. It's one of those things that just needs to go away. Well, enough off-topic-ness.... Fellow Duo-ers, please don't use the word "crew" to refer to your employees.
In the late 80's, my first "real" job was at a Wendy's (fast-food hamburger restaurant). We had a "crew chief", implying that the rest of us were "crew". Cf. "gang" in the context of "railroad gangs" or "work gangs".
Crew came to distinguished from staff, work force etc. to denote the fact that the particular work force was assembled for a specific task. On completion of the task they were usually released from normal duties.
A good example is a ship's crew, a team assembled for the operation of the ship. As the complexity of the operating a ship increase, the number of people permanently attached to the ship increased so as to maintain the requisite competency. Even though modern ships' crews are attached to a specific ship for an extended period they are still regarded as employed for that specific purpose.
Originally, a voyage could take a year or more and often only a third of the crew survived. Upon completion of the voyage the ship and remaining crew were in such poor condition that neither were able to put to sea again. Ships were rebuilt but crews discarded. Coastal shipping trips were much shorter but generally crews were dismissed upon completion of even short trips.
Any work force contracted for a specific task and then not paid until the next task is likely to be referred to as a crew. This includes flight crew, delivery crews, clean up crews etc. Or if they are permanently employed but can expect to be assigned dramatically different tasks at totally different locations at the whim of the employer, they can expect to regarded as a crew.
Similar, but not quite the same. You can be content/satisfied without being happy.
I can understand your question. Even I am trying to find a good answer from some one in order to remember it. Danke dir!
Someone can explain me this: because of Das, I wrote THIS crew, and duo marked bad, it was THE crew...why?? When this, and when the
Das schould always be translated into the while this and that are demonstrative pronouns as much as they are in German. This - dies , that - jenes, These - diese, those - jene
Hello Duo, if you're listening (which I doubt you are, anymore). When I translate your sentences it is, many times, easy. I look at the alternative pick of answers & pick the one that makes sense, & I get it right. An idea for you. Challenge you customers here or open other site that does. I do like this & still am using it. Don't get angry.
Das Personal is singular (as described in the Wikipedia). It refers to the whole group. I suppose there could be only one person employed to run an office, in which case the staff/personnel consists of only one person, but normally das Personal is going to be several people.
this is an interesting sentence word in both German and English. It would be nice if somebody could perhaps show some working examples and also perhaps what they could possibly mean.
Personal is an uncountable (i.e. always in singular) way of saying "all employees (of a company)". So for example, if everyone working in a restaurant (waiters, cooks, pretty much everyone but the manager) is happy with their job/life/circumstances/whatever then you could use this statement.
NB: "Personal" is a noun auf Deutsch which is translated to "personnel" or "staff" in English; whereas in English, "personal" is an adjective. (In this context, "personal" is an adjective. It can be a noun when referring to a type of advertisement.)
As a native speaker of English, whilst it may be grammatically correct, I can't imagine anyone actually saying this. You would say "the workforce is satisfied" or something similar.
In the UK we say 'the staff are satisfied' unless the staff consists of one person. I hope the statements in German are more accurate.
Yes, as "satisfied" is a human sentiment we're talking about the individuals and in British English should use notional agreement.
Americans tend to prefer formal agreement, but still use notional agreement at times.
I listened to this like twelve times, didn't figure out it was saying "Personal" :( Heartbreaker, you are, Duo.
This discussion on collective nouns has been very common here on duolingo, but the bottom line is: no it shouldn't. From a prescriptivist point of view it is debatable whether it may be right, and then only in British English. From a descriptivist standpoint―which I favour―both are in use in British English, with the singular structure used to emphasise "unity" of the group; American English, instead, largely prefers the singular, but some leeway is possible (I have honestly never heard a sentence like "my family are doing fine" from any American speaker yet, but I have heard some accounts).
In the begging of the lesson the words lists is: "Verfasser, Betreiber, Entwickler, personal, Empfänger, " Shouldn't that be Personal since it's a noun? I've reported it.
Yes staff is plural and it should read : The staff are satisfied. Staff is a collective noun.
In the U.S.--like it or not, that's the English dialect which die Eule has decided to standardize on--"staff" is often used as a if it were singular in number. Collective nouns can be used as either singular or plural, depending on the context, so identifying "staff" as a collective noun does not mean it must be used as if it were plural.
Actually, that's formally true (if not in everyday speech) also in British English: for example, go look at the OED definition of ‘staff’ and it will say “treated as singular or plural” in brackets (at least in those acceptations of ‘staff’ that are collective nouns). The same can be said for other collective nouns like ‘family’, ‘team’, ‘board (of directors, etc.)’, and so on.