Language & Grammar discussion

When I was in school, I learned when the subject of a sentence is an organization, you use the third person singular verb conjugation. Over the last few months, I've read several books that have used the plural verb conjugation instead of the singular. For example, "The United Nations are..." instead of "The United Nations is..." Did someone change the rule?

I don't think it's widespread. I've only noticed it in about a half dozen books. But, it really grates on me when I encounter it. Obviously, it's not just the writers' writing, it's also the editors' editing. It does seem to occur mostly in books from the UK. However, I majored in English Literature and I never noticed a difference in subject/verb agreement between the Brits and the Americans before.

Am I wrong about the verb conjugation? Have I been wrong my whole life? Is this new grammar?

No...it is not you....it is lazy or poor grammar.

No, you're correct. As far as I know, all collective nouns are singular in the United States.

I think this is a Briticism. I've been noticing the same pluralization as well, and I think it's only because I'm reading and hearing more and more material coming from places that follow British rules.

One that gets to me is, "The family are ..." The British are adamant that that's plural. But it jars me just the same.

In NZ we follow British usage but I still think it is a lazy or ignorant error...we are still taught singular. Could be one of those things that 'evolve' because no-one can be bothered picking up on it...it just becomes common usage.

Hmmmmmmm.....you have a point with The Stones...but a herd is singular and all my horses is plural.

Relyt, you noticed the same thing I did. I have only seen it in books by British authors. It was really bad in "Thirteen" by Richard Morgan because he had so many organizations with acronyms and use the plural with the acronyms on nearly every page. I liked the book, but that one thing drove me nuts.

Donna, I think the reason we would say "The Rolling Stones are four old guys" is simply because it sounds okay. However, "The Rolling Stones is four old guys." doesn't sound weird. Either works, but the singular is the correct usage.

But we always say "the police are" not "the police is." Something my husband has never managed to get under his belt even after over 50 years in this country.

Good to see you Alicia!

I have never understood squinting modifiers-- please enlighten my non-grammatical mind.

Does it count if I mention that I have to squint to see my screen? Or does that mean I just really need to make an appontment with the eye doctor? :)

I love subject-verb disagreement, especially when it's part of the collective bargaining negotiations. The media are... the media is.... and the Brits are wrong again! (Blame Cornwallis.)

Okay, we're agreed: Countability is the crucial determinant in subject/verb agreement concerning collective nouns.

This decision has been reached without the participation of Great Britain. There is, then, no telling what next to expect from them. Media ... family ... are ... are ...

Both are right according to "English Grammar in Use" which is a British English grammar series and "Practical English Usage". You can look at a group as a group meaning 1 thing so a singular verb would follow or as lots of people within a group so a plural verb would follow. It's not lazy/poor English --it just sounds weird to some of us if you don't use both but they are perfectly acceptable :)

re: A herd of horses is coming but all my horses are in the paddock...

Not to beat a dead horse--beg pardon--but I fear I must mix my metaphors by playing the devil's advocate: "All" is considered as singular, right? If so, then despite "horses" (plural), would we still say "is"? Though it offends my ear most royally, I couldn't help but wonder...

The subject of a sentence cannot be the object of a preposition. Is it not so?

Preposition* 2 1/2... it's been the bane of Massachusetts town budgets for years now.






* sic, natch

In the movie National Treasure: Book of Secrets Ben Gates (Nicolas Cage) states that before the Civil War, people said "the United States are...", after, people said "the United States is..."

They should have been focusing on the adjective "United" and not the verbs "are" and "is"...

I read about this in Shelby Foote's massive history of the Civil War. He attributed it to the general feeling that before the war the U.S. was more of a loose confederation with emphasis on states' independence, and that after the war the emphasis was on "one nation indivisible."

It's more delicate to refer to "the Late Unpleasantness."

Sandi wrote: "When I was in school, I learned when the subject of a sentence is an organization, you use the third person singular verb conjugation. Over the last few months, I've read several books that have us..."

It is a singular verb follows the United Nations because it is considered one organization. Subject V agreement

To renew a topic mentioned above: Collective Nouns.
I can only speak about American usage.
Prior to the American Civil War/The War Between the States, many referred to "These United States." When Robert E. Lee was offered a commission in the US Army, he declined the offer because his first allegiance was to his country Virginia. After the American Civil War, the country was foraged together enough that Lincoln spoke of foraging a new country in Gettysburg Address. Now we speak of The United States as a whole, a collective noun term that requires single person verb.

As we do of BEADS in a NECKLACE... not these STATES in a (the) UNITED STATES. We could call the entity (the) UNITED STATE but it would seem ex-patriotic to the individual member state(s). Or, the neckLACE would be those united BEADS, ignoring their individuality.