Skip to main content
added 469 characters in body
Source Link
FumbleFingers
  • 142.5k
  • 45
  • 297
  • 525

There is nothing at all wrong with the original phrasing, technically or otherwise.

Converting analyses to the singular is at best misleading, since it implies there is only one analysis, which is unlikely to be true.

Perhaps it goes some way to explaining OP's misgivings about the plural if I point out that it's common practice for UK tv news programmes, for example, to end by saying something like "For more in-depth analysis of the news, go to our website..." In that construct we probably wouldn't hear the plural, even though obviously it's more 'accurate'. I think the mass media tend to assume analyses is a 'technical' term, too 'highbrow' for many of their audience.

There is nothing at all wrong with the original phrasing, technically or otherwise.

Converting analyses to the singular is at best misleading, since it implies there is only one analysis, which is unlikely to be true.

There is nothing at all wrong with the original phrasing, technically or otherwise.

Converting analyses to the singular is at best misleading, since it implies there is only one analysis, which is unlikely to be true.

Perhaps it goes some way to explaining OP's misgivings about the plural if I point out that it's common practice for UK tv news programmes, for example, to end by saying something like "For more in-depth analysis of the news, go to our website..." In that construct we probably wouldn't hear the plural, even though obviously it's more 'accurate'. I think the mass media tend to assume analyses is a 'technical' term, too 'highbrow' for many of their audience.

Source Link
FumbleFingers
  • 142.5k
  • 45
  • 297
  • 525

There is nothing at all wrong with the original phrasing, technically or otherwise.

Converting analyses to the singular is at best misleading, since it implies there is only one analysis, which is unlikely to be true.