This one's for you, Jackie
. It come from the UK-based Plain English Campaign's weekly mini-missive:
We've had several e-mails on the 'have vs has' debate (for collective nouns). As so often with linguistic arguments, Bill Bryson provides a common-sense approach in his excellent book Troublesome Words.
"Deciding whether to treat nouns of multitude (words like majority, flock, army, Government, group, crowd) as singulars or plurals is entirely a matter of the sense you intend to convey. Although some authorities have tried to fix rules, such undertakings are almost inevitably wasted effort. On the whole, Americans lean to the singular and Britons to the plural, often in ways that would strike the other as absurd (compare the American 'The couple was married in 1978' with the British 'England are to play Hungary in their first World Cup match.)"Doesn't really solve any problems, but it *does serve to remind me I haven't read this Bryson offering yet.
Collective nouns generally make me crazy in those grey areas. Our family is planning a reunion, for example. Well, family members in various states of the USA are planning different activities for the reunion. So, the family are planning a reunion? Sheesh. The chorus are planning another? The team are planning still another, if the plans are all being planned independently of each other? When in doubt, which is often, I make intentional substitutes: Family members are making plans, as well as club and chorus members. Cowardly, yes, but it works.
The couple is/are getting married (USA v. British)? Coward's take: John and Jewel are getting married. :)
Ack--it's taken me a while to get to this category, too.
Nope, nope, nope--the sense *I intend to convey is that the team IS, the family IS, and so forth. These groups function as a unit...*a* unit, ipso facto: singular.Gee--if I used the right Latin phrase, maybe people will be convinced.
However, strictly speaking according to prescriptive rules, if the group members are acting independently of each other in various actions, the plural verb is required. I think it sounds horrible using the plural verb, but prescriptivists would say it's required at times, depending upon the sense conveyed. That's why I cheat and use 'team members,' etc., when trying to avoid the plural verb. Apparently to those cross-ponders the plural verb sounds fine, thank you very much.
On the whole, Americans lean to the singular and Britons to the plural
Nope, nope, nope--the sense *I intend to convey is that the team IS, the family IS, and so forth.
Well, that *is what Bryson is *describing....
In reply to:
On the whole, Americans lean to the singular and Britons to the plural
Nope, nope, nope--the sense *I intend to convey is that the team IS, the family IS, and so forth.
Well, that *is what Bryson is *describing....
And very succinctly too. It is interesting how ingrained the respective choices are. If asked, I would automatically say "Arsenal are my favourite team in the Premiership", irregardless of any Latin phrases used to persuade me otherwise. I just can't orientate myself to say it differently.
If it sounds funny, the hell with it.
If it sounds funny,
But doesn't it depend upon whose ear is listening?
If a participle dangles in the forest and there's no one around, does it make any noise?
If asked, I would automatically say "Arsenal are my favourite team in the Premiership", irregardless of any Latin phrases used to persuade me otherwise. I just can't orientate myself to say it differently. Hrmph. Watch it, Bub. And what's wrong with the All Blacks, anyway?
Thank you, Alex--I'm glad
someone is on my side. [gracious bow e] (Yeah yeah, I know he didn't SAY so, but I'm taking it for granted that that's what he meant...)
I favor the use of the singular when the group functions as a unit and has a singular name. The football team has an average SAT score of 350. If the group has a plural noun for a name I use the plural: The Cincinnati Bengals are in last place. Then there's the phenomenon of a singular object expressed with a plural noun, such as pants or scissors. My pants are on fire and The scissors are on the table. I guess I just take the path of least resistance.
the family IS, and so forth. These groups function as a unit Your assertion is based very much on the ideal(ised) situation
.