|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 346 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 150 of 346:
| 
Apr 8 06:51 UTC 1995 |
The media claim the right of freedom of expression, is fine. I will agree
that if you can construct it so that the antecedent is logically
singular, a plural noun can take the singular. Am example is, "The set
of data contains errors." I think the number error occurs because
people are thinking of the *set* - though not saying so. Incidentally,
editors of professional journals often care about this, and will correct
all your "data" constructions to the plural.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 151 of 346:
|
Apr 8 12:42 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
zook
|
|
response 152 of 346:
|
Apr 8 19:08 UTC 1995 |
<the set contains errors - of data is a subordinate clause>
|
davel
|
|
response 153 of 346:
|
Apr 9 00:26 UTC 1995 |
Just to add even more confusion to the singular/plural questions being
discussed: I've encountered a reasonable amount of (now somewhat old) British
fiction in which (in dialogue, anyway) words like "army" and "government"
are used with plural verbs, where we'd use singular ones. Sounds very
strange to my ears.
|
birdlady
|
|
response 154 of 346:
|
Apr 9 00:43 UTC 1995 |
Davel...could you please give an example? I'm not too clear on what you are
saying.
|
davel
|
|
response 155 of 346:
|
Apr 9 01:40 UTC 1995 |
"The army say that they will ... ".
|
birdlady
|
|
response 156 of 346:
|
Apr 9 03:30 UTC 1995 |
Eep!!! =( I think that they may assume that since the army is many people,
they should use the plural. However, since army is a singular term, (like
spaghetti and meatballs) it is a *unit*. A unit takes on the singular form
of the verb. Is that what you were asking? I can't remember... =)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 157 of 346:
|
Apr 9 03:44 UTC 1995 |
When I worked for Shell, the official compnay usage was "Shell Inc. are...".
But then, Shell is a Dutch company. The usage, however, agrees with the
British one.
|
davel
|
|
response 158 of 346:
|
Apr 9 23:56 UTC 1995 |
I wasn't asking, I was describing. I don't think this is universal even
among the British, & I don't know what the limits are. But I've met it
being used with consistency in fairly respectable & careful writers' works,
so I'm pretty sure it's not an accident or simple mistake; and I was
therefore pointing out that the question of how collectives are handled
is more vexed than the previous discussion had indicated.
|
srw
|
|
response 159 of 346:
|
Apr 10 00:56 UTC 1995 |
At issue is the grammatical form known as a "collective noun".
A collective noun is a noun with a singular form but which represents a
plural concept. All English speaking countries except the US define
agreement for collective nouns differently than we do. They all use
plural verbs. Only in the US should one use a singular verb with a
collective noun.
I first noticed this when I came to Ann Arbor back in the 60s and encountered
CBC broadcasts of hockey games. I am an avid hockey fan and was appalled
to hear them say on TV "Toronto carry the puck into the Detroit end".
I have heard British, Indian, Canadian, Aussi, and New Zealanders all
talk this way. I believe it is required for them.
|
brenda
|
|
response 160 of 346:
|
Apr 10 00:58 UTC 1995 |
I was thinking earlier: which is correct? "all are" or "all is"?
Intuitively, I would choose all are, but it seems that it could also
be used as a collective noun.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 161 of 346:
|
Apr 10 04:02 UTC 1995 |
"All are here." (All is here??); "All is calm, all is bright." (All are
calm, all are bright.??). The difference here appears to depend upon
whether the units of All are countable (people, books, etc), or whether
All is a subtitute for "everything".
|
kenb
|
|
response 162 of 346:
|
Apr 10 09:16 UTC 1995 |
Odd that Shell Inc. would be considered plural since both the language and
the act of "incorporating" is to form *one* body.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 163 of 346:
|
Apr 10 12:37 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
davel
|
|
response 164 of 346:
|
Apr 12 01:48 UTC 1995 |
So, obviously, even American English is pretty confused on this. Note that
I said that (some, at least) British usage uses plural verbs with
collectives *where we would use singular ones*.
Let me add that in English (& every other language I've studied enough
to notice) even if a collective noun takes a singular verb in its
immediate context, pronouns referring back to it a sentence or two later
may well be plural - I'm tempted to say "usually are plural" on the basis
of examples that come to mind - and take plural verbs. "The government is
about to anounce that ... . They are taking this step in order to ... ."
|
srw
|
|
response 165 of 346:
|
Apr 12 05:34 UTC 1995 |
American English is not confused on this. "The Giants" is not a
collective noun. If it were it would have a singular form.
It has a plural form, and so American and British usage would agree
on a plural verb.
|
zook
|
|
response 166 of 346:
|
Apr 12 12:54 UTC 1995 |
You tend to run into more trouble with ambiguous team names - eg. The Crimson
Tide, The Big Red, etc
|
peacefrg
|
|
response 167 of 346:
|
Apr 12 14:30 UTC 1995 |
<Peacefrog sticks his head in and runs away because there's a warrent out for
his arrest>
|
srw
|
|
response 168 of 346:
|
Apr 12 16:52 UTC 1995 |
It's "warrant", James.
I dunno, Bret. Tide is a singular noun. Big Red is an adjective
converted to use as a noun, so while I'd agree that it was ambiguous,
I'd say it had a singular form when used as a noun. and would follow
the usage as a collective noun. (I.e. different here than there.)
USA: The Big Red is going to score another touchdown! [sing.]
UK: The Big Red have scored twice this half. [pl.]
|
peacefrg
|
|
response 169 of 346:
|
Apr 13 00:29 UTC 1995 |
MY GOD!!! I try to put on simple statement in here and I goof it up
Sheesh, I cant spell
|
davel
|
|
response 170 of 346:
|
Apr 13 01:54 UTC 1995 |
You also just dropped a period (or other stop) and an apostrophe. Boy,
some people ...
|
birdlady
|
|
response 171 of 346:
|
Apr 13 02:15 UTC 1995 |
Awww...leave peacefroggie alone. Anyone who can Mineo me more than twice in
one
day deserves some respect! =) Oops...did I just skip a line by accident?
Sorry... =)
|
aruba
|
|
response 172 of 346:
|
Apr 13 05:34 UTC 1995 |
I seem to remember a rule about collective nouns: when the members of the
collection are acting together, use a singular verb, when they're acting
separately, use a plural verb. As in:
The jury agrees that the man is guilty.
The government have yet to agree on a compromise.
I don't know, but I don't think I like it.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 173 of 346:
|
Apr 13 06:06 UTC 1995 |
So, its "Grex are a conferencing system"?
|
srw
|
|
response 174 of 346:
|
Apr 13 06:46 UTC 1995 |
I'll stick by my guns, Mark. I don't remember such a rule.
Where is an English teacher when you need one?
|
