Okay, so grammatically, in perfect tense we can use plural to mention a thing that has happened at least (or exactly) once? Wouldn’t using a plural imply multiple, when the known fact is singular?
It’s a fair point but it’s not as egregious as most other headlines. I personally give this one a pass since clickbaits are meta in the article space. It shows that GOG has this in their toolbox.
Is implying plurality exaggerating things to begin with in this context? The headline is pretty vague, it doesn’t overtly exaggerate. It makes a pretty simple statement without embellishing anything.
But if we’re going to get into the weeds, we don’t know how many private investigators work at whatever agency they hired, or how many were involved in tracking this person down.
Eh, when someone says “private investigator,” I subconsciously assume there could be a group involved, and not one person. If I hire a tax preparer, there are probably multiple people involved (the person preparing the tax docs, the accountants auditing those docs, people auditing their software, etc).
If someone says “private investigators,” I assume they contacted multiple agencies, perhaps on multiple occasions.
I mean, we’re all being pedantic, aren’t we? honestly, I don’t even know why we wasted the time we have on this lmao. for me it’s probably because I’m working and bored to death.
Okay, so grammatically, in perfect tense we can use plural to mention a thing that has happened at least (or exactly) once? Wouldn’t using a plural imply multiple, when the known fact is singular?
It’s a fair point but it’s not as egregious as most other headlines. I personally give this one a pass since clickbaits are meta in the article space. It shows that GOG has this in their toolbox.
Is implying plurality exaggerating things to begin with in this context? The headline is pretty vague, it doesn’t overtly exaggerate. It makes a pretty simple statement without embellishing anything.
But if we’re going to get into the weeds, we don’t know how many private investigators work at whatever agency they hired, or how many were involved in tracking this person down.
Yes. Yes implying plurality for a singular thing is, by definition, exaggerating.
It did feel like exaggeration to me, but it could be my bias. May feel differently about it later.
You are right about the fact that it could be an agency. Maybe I was just being pedantic 😀
Eh, when someone says “private investigator,” I subconsciously assume there could be a group involved, and not one person. If I hire a tax preparer, there are probably multiple people involved (the person preparing the tax docs, the accountants auditing those docs, people auditing their software, etc).
If someone says “private investigators,” I assume they contacted multiple agencies, perhaps on multiple occasions.
I mean, we’re all being pedantic, aren’t we? honestly, I don’t even know why we wasted the time we have on this lmao. for me it’s probably because I’m working and bored to death.
lol, same here. Except leaning towards super annoyed because of some work related things.
Yes