=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 7, no. 68 (1 March 2002) Editorial mailing list (digest version) Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A [2sx] Singular thoughts on nouns =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2]-- Q & A -------------------------------------------------- ** [2sx] Singular thoughts on nouns Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 From: Ian Kingston, i.kingston@ntlworld.com An appropriate moment to point to the headline on the curling page of the Winter Olympics Web site: 'England stuns favored Canada'. It's 'Great Britain', officially. And the women's curling team is all Scottish. The page containing this typical error has gone now, but there's a PNG image of it at < http://www.ntk.net/2002/02/22/dohuk.png > One more detail: had this headline been written in the UK, it would have read 'stun' not 'stuns'. Any reason why the two sides of the Atlantic differ? ---------------------- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 From: John Crane, jcrane8@bellsouth.net We treat collective nouns differently -- British English as plural and American English as singular. (There are, of course, exceptions.) ---------------------- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 From: Ian Kingston, i.kingston@ntlworld.com John Crane wrote: > We treat collective nouns differently -- British English as > plural and American English as singular. ... Fair enough, although I still wonder why. It also jars when I hear a commentary that contains phrases like 'Miami scores' or 'The Dolphins score': the same entity is being described, but the noun switches from singular to plural. ---------------------- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 From: John Crane, jcrane8@bellsouth.net Ian Kingston wrote: > It also jars when ... the same entity is being described, but > the noun switches from singular to plural. Yes, American style is rather inconsistent about that. Even worse is a team that is not a plural name, e.g., "the Crimson Tide scores before the Tigers score." I've wondered if the language influences how we perceive our respective governments. Do the British see their government (government are) as the individual members of parliament or possibly as thousands of bureaucrats while Americans see government (government is) as a monolithic entity? ---------------------- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 From: Jane Lyle, jlyle@indiana.edu I think Americans have had so many grammar "rules" pounded into them by their elementary school teachers that they can be timid about violating those "rules." So the tendency is to use a singular verb with a singular noun and a plural verb with a plural noun, even when sense suggests otherwise. Even though we would say "Miami scores," most of us would say of Miami's professional basketball team "The Heat are playing well tonight." Yet many copy editors in this country tend to hypercorrect that "are" to "is"--even though the Heat are just as much a "they" as the Indiana Pacers are a "they." Also, even though we would say "Miami scores," most of us would refer to the team in subsequent sentences as "they," showing that we think of the team as plural even though we use the singular verb: "Miami scores! They now lead by 14 points. A win today will put them in the playoffs." I can't imagine anyone saying "Miami scores! It now leads by 14 points. A win today will put it in the playoffs." Yet, again, some editors feel the need to hypercorrect the verb, because it's hard for them to use a plural pronoun with an antecedent that is singular in structure. I think we will eventually adopt your usage. It may not follow the "rules," but it follows sense. In the meantime, though, most Americans are just as jarred by "The government are" as you are by "Miami scores." ---------------------- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 From: David Ibbetson, isserlis@rogers.com John Crane wrote: > I've wondered if the language influences how we perceive our > respective governments. Do the British see their government > (government are) as the individual members of parliament or > possibly as thousands of bureaucrats while Americans see > government (government is) as a monolithic entity? I was taught that (in British English) one can use singular or plural for nouns of assembly according as one is thinking of the collection or the individuals. But one shouldn't mix singular and plural adjacently. ---------------------- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 From: John Crane, jcrane8@bellsouth.net David Ibbetson wrote: > I was taught that (in British English) one can use singular or > plural for nouns of assembly ... But one shouldn't mix singular > and plural adjacently. I think that "rule" applies to American English also. Jane Lyle wrote: > Also, even though we would say "Miami scores," most of us would > refer to the team in subsequent sentences as "they," showing > that we think of the team as plural even though we use the > singular verb ... But that's exactly what I would edit it to in technical writing, and have done so with similar structures many times, with the philosophy that the pronouns must agree with the noun. I agree, of course, that in informal speech and informal writing, Americans (including me) would use "they." > I think we will eventually adopt your [British] usage. It may > not follow the "rules," but it follows sense. In the meantime, > though, most Americans are just as jarred by "The government > are" as you are by "Miami scores." Although I usually agree with you, Jane, in this case I don't think I do. Word usage, like water, tends to go downhill and take the easiest route. I don't think we'll be seeing Americans saying or writing "government are" or "Miami score." ---------------------- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 From: Nick Hudson, hudson@c031.aone.net.au There may be small differences between British and American usage, but I suspect we are all pretty clear about the difference between plurality of form and plurality of thought: Plural forms which represent singular thoughts, and therefore require singular verbs, include 'States' in the sentence 'The United States is the dominant world power'. Surely all the schoolmarms in Connecticut would not say 'The United States are...'. Still less 'Los Angeles are...'. Sense always wins in the end. Would Americans correct 'Niagara Falls was a great place for honeymoons'? We may fret over 'the media is'....' and 'the data is..' but who says 'the agenda are....'? Why? Because some of us still think of 'media' and 'data' as plurals, but 'agenda' has become a singular thought. We can even have two rival agendas. Similarly, singular forms which represent plural thoughts abound ­ the true collectives (e.g. 'cattle') and the words in which the singular and plural forms are the same (e.g. sheep'). Again, usage everywhere is surely the same. There are also some cases where a plural form exists but the singular form is used as a plural in some contexts. For some reason, this applies particularly to animals which are being killed for fun. Thus the ducks on the pond are ducks, but the wild ones on the marshes are, at least in British and Australian hunting usage, duck. cf. deer, buffalo, pheasant. I think this is so in the US, but may be wrong. It could be that 'The government are...' and 'Miami are...' are less common in the USA than in Britain, but I wonder whether John Crane is right in labelling these 'informal'. 'Miami score!' may sound odd out of context, but what if the context has established plurality, e.g. 'The Dodgers are ahead, but Miami is/are fighting back'? Would 'are' sound odd to Americans? This is a genuine question - I'd be interested to hear the answer. In British and Australian usage, sports teams are almost invariably treated as plurals, even when their forms are aggressively singular: 'Arsenal have signed Gromowitz as striker'. This usage would be regarded as normal, NOT informal. ----------------------- Date: Tues, 26 Feb 2002 From: Lane Lester, llester@simpub.com Nick Hudson wrote: > 'Miami score!' may sound odd out of context, but what if the > context has established plurality, e.g. 'The Dodgers are ahead, > but Miami is/are fighting back'? Would 'are' sound odd ... Yes, "are" would really grate! And in light of your excellent discourse on plurality of form and plurality of thought, I find my response somewhat surprising. [smile] ----------------------- Date: Tues, 26 Feb 2002 From: John Morris, johnjeff@meadowdance.org Nick Hudson wrote: > the ducks on the pond are ducks, but the wild ones on the > marshes are, at least in British and Australian hunting usage, > duck. cf. deer, buffalo, pheasant. I'm not a hunter and have never travelled in hunting circles even though it is very popular in the northeast part of the US, but I have never heard of game referred to in the singular like this. Where a separate plural exists, I would expect it to be used. > It could be that 'The government are...' and 'Miami are...' are > less common in the USA than in Britain ... 'Miami score!' may > sound odd out of context, but what if the context has > established plurality, e.g. 'The Dodgers are ahead, but Miami > is/are fighting back'? Would 'are' sound odd to Americans? Yes, "are" would sound mighty strange to me in this context. ----------------------- Date: Tues, 26 Feb 2002 From: Judy Stein, jstein@panix.com Nick Hudson wrote: > duck. cf. deer, buffalo, pheasant. Deer, buffalo, and pheasant are the standard plurals, but I've never heard "duck" as a plural. I can't imagine anybody saying "a flock of wild duck." I have the sense "a flock of pheasants" might be commonly used, although perhaps not by wildlife mavens. > Would 'are' sound odd to Americans? Yes, it would sound *extremely* odd. When a city or state name is used to refer to a team, it would be impossible to use the plural verb because its primary sense is so obviously singular. You might hear a singular team name, though, used with a plural verb--"The Heat are hot tonight." It used to be the case that all team names were plural, I believe; the trend toward singular names is relatively recent, and folks are probably still not quite sure how to deal with them. ----------------------- Date: Tues, 26 Feb 2002 From: Jane Kerr, bywater@ntlworld.com The BBC and The Times (to cite a couple of reliable sources of British English!) seem to have settled on plurals for teams, including those whose names are countries or cities: "Johnson will lead England into their Six Nations Championship match against France on Saturday ..." (The Times) "Nasser knows England need to raise game" (headline on The Times site) "Liverpool play Galatasaray on Tuesday knowing that they are rapidly running out of games ..." (BBC) and also for other "groups": "the band stopped their performance several times while Durst pleaded with the crowd to calm down" (BBC) but they use the singular in non-sporting contexts: "Foreign troops should have been withdrawn by the time the talks began, but only Namibia has complied ..." (BBC) ----------------------- Date: Tues, 26 Feb 2002 From: Judy Stein, jstein@panix.com I wrote: > When a city or state name is used to refer to a team, it would > be impossible to use the plural verb because its primary sense > is so obviously singular. Jane Kerr wrote: > The BBC and The Times (to cite a couple of reliable sources of > British English!) seem to have settled on plurals for teams, > including those whose names are countries or cities: I should have said that it would be impossible *for us*, for U.S. residents, to use the plural verb. > "Nasser knows England need to raise game" (headline on The > Times site) That has to be a firm and explicitly stated style rule rather than unconscious usage. I can't believe anybody would write "England need to raise..." if they weren't deliberately following a rule. I would even go so far as to wonder whether there's some grumbling among editorial staff... My favorite illustration of the noun/verb agreement difficulty is this notice reportedly posted on a New York Times staff bulletin board by the resident grammar maven: a clipped headline reading, "Six Inches of Snow Fall on City," with the penciled annotation, "Watch out for falling inches!" ----------------------- Date: Tues, 26 Feb 2002 From: Iwan Thomas, iwan@frame.org.uk I wouldn't dream of referring to "England" in the singular when the cricket, or any other team, is being discussed: it's first nature to refer to any team in the plural. "Wales are playing Italy on Saturday" is a far more sensible construction, implying the Welsh (rugby) team, not the country, is involved. ----------------------- Date: Tues, 26 Feb 2002 From: Jane Lyle, jlyle@indiana.edu Iwan Thomas wrote: > "Wales are playing Italy on Saturday" is a far more sensible > construction, implying the Welsh (rugby) team, not the country, > is involved. Again, however, "sensible" is a matter of perspective. In this case your perspective is that of someone living in a country in which the plural is normally used in this construction. To those of us who live in a country where the plural is *not* normally used in this construction, it doesn't seem "sensible" at all. It seems to be exactly what it is: a matter of idiom. As others have said, "Miami score!" would sound extremely odd to Americans--just as odd as "Miami scores!" may sound to you. What sounds "odd" or "normal" to each of us depends on what we hear around us. And few Americans would use a plural verb with a singular noun in this particular context. If they want to talk about the team as plural, they will use the team name rather than the city where the team plays. Or, as I said earlier, they will quickly switch to plural pronouns. (That inconsistency is the reason I think that we eventually will come to use a plural verb in such a case. But it isn't going to happen any time soon.) There are a few collective nouns that can take a plural verb in U.S. English. Many people would naturally use "My family are" in some contexts, as well as "The couple are" (when referring to a married couple) and "The jury are." In most cases, however, it's still "My family is," "The couple is," "The jury is." ----------------------- Date: Tues, 26 Feb 2002 From: Judy Stein, jstein@panix.com Something else occurred to me about this usage. "Miami scores" is actually a shorthand form of "The team from Miami scores," or "Miami's team scores," or "The Miami team scores." So it's the team as a single entity rather than as a collection of individuals that's being referred to, in addition to the fact that "Miami" itself is a singular noun referring to a singular entity, the city in Florida. This isn't the case with team names: "The Dodgers" is a collection of individuals--a team member is "a Dodger," singular. It really becomes ambiguous only when the team name is singular, e.g., the Heat. Just as there's no word that refers to an individual member of "the Miami team," there's no word that refers to an individual member of "the Heat." So "the Heat," it would seem, is never a collection of individuals, only a single entity. (I suppose you could use the same term you'd use for a resident of Miami, "a Miamian," but some of these references are cumbersome--"a Detroiter," "a Michigander"--and such a usage becomes rather distant from the sense of an individual as a member of a sports team. And there just is no parallel form for a member of the Heat, at least not yet.) ----------------------- Date: Tues, 26 Feb 2002 From: David Ibbetson, isserlis@rogers.com Jane Lyle wrote: > There are a few collective nouns that can take a plural verb in > U.S. English. ... In most cases, however, it's still "My family > is," "The couple is," "The jury is." How about "The jury is fighting among themselves"? ----------------------- Date: Tues, 26 Feb 2002 From: Jane Lyle, jlyle@indiana.edu Some Americans would say "The jury are fighting among themselves." Those who can't bring themselves to say "jury are" would say "The members of the jury are fighting among themselves." ---------------------- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 From: Damaris Wilson, Wilsondidi@aol.com Iwan Thomas wrote: > "Wales are playing Italy on Saturday" is a far more sensible > construction, implying the Welsh (rugby) team, not the country, > is involved. And anyway, as Iwan himself said, it's the Welsh team that IS involved (i.e. not ARE)... ---------------------- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 From: Iwan Thomas, iwan@frame.org.uk Wales are going to beat Italy, because the Welsh team is the finest in the world. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 From: Eddie Kent, edlineek@aol.com Judy Stein writes: > Deer, buffalo, and pheasant are the standard plurals, but I've > never heard "duck" as a plural. I can't imagine anybody saying > "a flock of wild duck." Don't know about duck (though I can't see why not). But I must go where the wild goose goes, or words to that effect. > It really becomes ambiguous only when the team name is > singular, e.g., the Heat. ... there's no word that refers to an > individual member of "the Heat." So "the Heat," it would seem, > is never a collection of individuals, only a single entity. Heater? Heatist? Neil Hudson writes: > We may fret over 'the media is'....' and 'the data is..' but > who says 'the agenda are....'? Why? Because some of us still > think of 'media' and 'data' as plurals, but 'agenda' has become > a singular thought. We can even have two rival agendas. In fact an agenda is a list of items each of which is an agendum. Thus it is singular. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= END OF EDline 7.68 Admin page: < http://www.electriceditors.net/edline/admin.htm > ** The views expressed in this mailing list are strictly those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the moderators or of the Electric Editors. ** Articles (c) 2001, 2002, by individual contributors Design (c) 1996--2002 Iain Brown Compilation (c) 2002, Iain Brown / The Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=