What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[Mr. Bean]

How often does that happen?

(sigh... we've been through this sooooo many times before...)

[rogolf]

And, imo, why this thread on a never-ending topic should be closed and left to threads on more specific rules/topics. This thread could (and likely will) go on for decades.

[Hawkeye77]

Or understands if he meant the most recent popular usage, lol, then it would have called for "do they" not "does they" Mr. Strunk.

[antip]

It's a leading statement, Mr B, please don't give it any oxygen by replying.

[rogolf]

Recall that English is not his first language - a little tolerance and understanding is permitted.

[Mr. Bean]

I am confused as I thought the grammar was correct. 'They' referred to one (unknown) person so the verb must have the form 'does'. Or..?

[Hawkeye77]

LOL, you get flagged for illegal use of edification and now you sidestep to making Bean a victim in this? He's never had any issues with expressing himself eloquently.

I can only chuckle.

Now back to fairway divots . . . .

 

[nsxguy]

"They" is plural, hence it's "They do"

"He, she, or it" is singular, hence "he, she, or it does".

Ain't no big thing,,,,,,,,,

[Hawkeye77]

Well, except for the new "they" being singular as well (see deeming of new English usage for political reasons elsewhere which I choose not to accept) but still requiring "do" not "does".

[Mr. Bean]

But 'they' can also be singular, as rogolf already wrote:(the third-person plural) A group of people, animals or objects previously mentioned.(the third-person singular, sometimes proscribed) A single person, previously mentioned, especially if of unknown or non-binary gender.(indefinite pronoun, vague meaning) People; some people; someone, excluding the speaker.

[Hawkeye77]

But still requires "do" not "does" Mr. Bean, regardless of the singular. Don't sweat it.

[Mr. Bean]

Oh my, that is illogical...

[Hawkeye77]

Well, to me not as illogical as turning "they" on its head (not meaning you but the so-called language powers that be).

[nsxguy]

Well, I guess you learn something new every day ?

Then again, English never was my best subject.

[back to my hut]

[Hawkeye77]

Just be grateful we are no longer English subjects!

[Mr. Bean]

I guess this has something to do with the ever increasing need to invent new words that describe people and occupations in a 'neutral' way. For example 'fireman' is a no-no and must be replaced by 'firefighter'. Similarly your language had to have a neutral word referring to a person with undefined gender. That happened also in Sweden but they invented a completely new word for that. Us Finns never had such a problem as our word 'hän' means a person regardless of the gender, just like your 'they' does today.

[rogolf]

And some are grateful for that.

[antip]

Yes, welcome to our world. Grammar 'rules' is often a misnomer, 'guidance' often works better. There's a classic, 'grammar rules' can be a collective singular, implying 'the phrase 'grammar rules' is....

[Newby]

The 'language powers that be' are just anyone and everyone. English is an ever evolving language. New words arise, old words disappear, words change their meanings and some words have a different meaning depending on where you live.

But ultimately Humpty Dumpty has it right providing the listener/reader understands.

 

But you were never 'English' subjects

[Sean2]

Wouldn’t the mere fact of your saying, “I am going to hit a provisional,” indicate that you are not sure if your ball went OB or not?

Using the word “provisional” inherently includes “just in case”.

[deadsolid...shank]

[Sawgrass]

18.3b says in part:

 

You must use the word “provisional” or otherwise clearly indicate that you are playing the ball provisionally under Rule 18.3.

 

So you are clearly correct. But do you think anyone has disagreed with that?

[nsxguy]

Yes, but what's your point ?

The original post on this particular subject (2053) was about whether or not the ball about to be played WAS a provisional or not.

Saying "I'm hitting a provisional" was not the issue.

[James the Hogan Fan]

As logical as 'ne on' (not he ovat) in Finnish I suppose. People make up usages convenient to them and "they" just sounds sooooo unnatural with 'is' as opposed to 'are'

To the matter of provisional ball, how about, "a player who wishes to hit a provisional shall indicate his intent by holding arms crossed above the head until a fellow competitor/opponent acknowledges the signal by returning it" (or some other suitable signal with a little rulebook picture of the motion to be performed.)

It eliminates semantics, and by requiring an unique signal and confirmation would serve to make sure all parties are on the same page. What if the parties can't see each other? I suppose then you could allow verbal, or just say you must find them, either one.

[davep043]

I would love to see the parodies of that on the PGA Tour, by the guys who thought the new drop looked "silly". My real concern, given the trend in the rules towards taking the player's (unstated) intention into account, is to eliminate any need to clearly communicate the intention to play a provisional.

[Hawkeye77]

LOL, not opening that can of worms!

[Hawkeye77]

Haha - I'll bet there are plenty of us any King or Queen of the Britons would love to repress. ;-)

[Hawkeye77]

Valid concern IMO.

[nsxguy]

Am I looking at the wrong place ? I don't see any 18.3b/2

Ahhhh, the Decisions Interpretations, not the Rule.

I think the Rule itself is pretty clear, perhaps not even "worthy" of an interpretation.

(18) "b. Announcing Play of Provisional Ball

Before the stroke is made, you must announce that you are going to play a provisional ball.It is not enough for you only to say that you are playing another ball or are playing again.You must use the word “provisional” or otherwise clearly indicate that you are playing the ball provisionally under Rule 18.3.

If you did not announce this (even if you intended to play a provisional ball) and played a ball from where the previous stroke was made, that ball is your ball in play under penalty of stroke and distance."

[Mr. Bean]

'As logical as 'ne on' (not he ovat) in Finnish I suppose.'

That is a different issue as 'ne on' may be either spoken (grammatically incorrect) language or grammatically correct if that continues with a verb in proper tempus. 'They are' is grammatically correct (as I have been told) but can mean either plural or singular and you can distinguish that only from the rest of the sentence, if at all, and that makes it illogical in my eyes. But that is how languages are, filled with exceptions and illogical forms.