I can't believe I never knew this until just now.

[prillalar]

I always thought the singular vs plural status of collective nouns was one of those NA vs UK things. But then I found this.

This is from a style guide on a Canadian government site, so it's possible it only applies to Canada. But I'm in Canada, so that's fine.

Collective nouns such as board, cabinet, commission, committee, council, government, group, majority, number, and series take their verb or pronoun in either the singular or plural, depending upon the context in which they are used. Use the plural when the action is taken by the individual members considered in their separate capacities, and use the singular when the group acts or thinks as a whole:

The committee have discussed all aspects of the case and have not yet reached agreement.

The committee approved the motion unanimously and directed its subcommittee to take immediate action.

Is it different where you live?

Comments

[ellensmithee.livejournal.com]

I thought Canadian English had a lot of little grammatical things that they did the BE instead of the AE way. I got into an argument with a Canadian friend once on how to pronounce "shone." He thought I was insane for pronouncing it like "bone" and I'd never heard of pronouncing it like "gone."

[jennilee.livejournal.com]

Almost everything Canadians do (language-wise) is done the British way. I am also Canadian and was completely shocked at what you just said here (shone as in bone instead of gone). I actually asked an American friend I was chatting with at the moment if that was true, because I couldn't believe it. O_o

U.S. vs. Brit plurals

[(Anonymous)]

In several posts on Britishisms in fic, I've pointed out that the U.S. treats some things as singular that at least some British folk treat as plural. For the U.S. Sony is a corporation. For British folk, it seems Sony are a corporation. Similarly, in the U.S. U2 is a band, whereas for British folk it seems U2 are a band.

[zero-sleep.livejournal.com]

Australia follows the same collective noun rule as Canada. Actually as far as I know Canadian and Australian english (Australian definitely) are a good deal closer to English engish than the bastardized NA version. Not that it matters much anymore over here, since NA grammar and spelling are somewhat bullying everything else into submission what with University's and schools taking an either/or approach. Which bugs the shite out of me, but is also a rant for another day when I'm not running late. >_>;

[girliejones.livejournal.com]

Well we do follow the Canadian in so far as both Australian and Canadian English are Bristish English. However, collective nouns, I do believe, are inheritently singular are they not? Taking the example above, I would edit it to read: The committee has discussed all aspects of the case and have not yet reached agreement

ie one committee, many members of committee.

[zero-sleep.livejournal.com]

Hal's example is correct for BritEng, and thus AustEng as well. It's just that the two occurances of 'have' are confusing. Think of it this way (keeping in mind that 'are', as 'have', is plural):

"The committee are discussing all aspects of the case and have not yet reached an agreement."

Thus "The committee have" is correct for Australians, while "The commitee has" would be correct for NA.

[mad_maudlin]

Nope. In the USA we use the singular tense for a singular collective noun--so one committee discusses, two committees discuss.

Yay for national standards!

collective nouns

[(Anonymous)]

I find it really jarring to read something that I expect to be singular written as a plural in fic, too. Presuming the fic is supposed to be set in the U.S., of course.

[ellipsisblack.livejournal.com]

Australia here; that's how I'd use them. Singular when it's the body as a while, plural when it's the members of the body.

[girliejones.livejournal.com]

I think the example given is wrong - and I speak Australian :-) I agree Singular when it's the body as a while, plural when it's the members of the body except in this example it should still read The committee has discussed it.

[boorman.livejournal.com]

uh, no, because when the commitee is still discussing it, theyre considered as a group of people. When they reach an unanimous concensus, THEN theyre a sigular entity...

[girliejones.livejournal.com]

Yes but the committee itself, even though it is a group of people, is still a single entity. If you want to imply the group of people as multiple entities then you should say the members of the committee are discussing it.

[boorman.livejournal.com]

not under Austenglish. We dont automatically consider singular like the USA.

If we changed the tense, We use "the committee are discussing" not "the committee is discussing", so it has to be have. Its not untill the committee is actually acting as a single entity that it becomes one.

[girliejones.livejournal.com]

Okay - have checked with my uncle who is an English Professor and apparently the whole thing is far more complex than I was thinking and I bow to your grammatical superiority. Excellent lesson and I thank you.

[boorman.livejournal.com]

i wouldnt do that quite yet, because i think i got it wrong in my original reply :p

"uh, no, because when the commitee is still discussing it" should have been are ¬¬

i talk to way too many americans...

[girliejones.livejournal.com]

:-)

[snake-easing.livejournal.com]

I'm from the states, and I would never say that a committee "have" done something. Never.

Unless it was like: "The committee has discussed it, and they have not reached agreement yet." But that's relatively informal, as the subject shifts halfway through the sentence from the committee itself to the members in it.

[franzeska]

Singular. Absolutely always singular in American English, I would say.

[ex-stateline124.livejournal.com]

Oh dear. (From the daily_snitch and American here.) This is something I always get muddled up, especially when talking about bands (which, as a booker at a music venue, I do quite a bit and it's so confusing sometimes when doing press releases.)

Someone mentioned this example: Similarly, in the U.S. U2 is a band, whereas for British folk it seems U2 are a band.

I suppose since I've never actually had grammar taught to me (it's been entirely phased out of secondary school), so I tend to just go by what sounds "right" to me. But I think in general, I lean towards using the British/Canadian/Australian way of doing it, rather than the American.

U2 is made up of 4 people. U2 are from Ireland. U2 are currently touring Antarctica. The Board of Directors are taking a short break. The Board decided to postpone their decision.

But I kind of waffle, and I'm not even entirely sure my examples follow what I'm saying and ARGH. Currently in German 102 and really really really wishing that I had learned basic grammar formally, at least in so far as the names of things and the specific rules -- instead I do everything by instinct, and once in a while that leads to disasterous foibles. :/

[http://users.livejournal.com/_riz/]

Helloooo. This is randomly late, but I'm always hopelessly hooked by grammar talk, so... >_> I'm a copy editor and get asked this all the time, and like your example says, it varies so I can never really give a straight answer! But the rule is generally that if you're emphasizing individuals, if there's a difference in what they're doing, then it's plural, but if the action is unanimous, it's singular. So "the committee decides to accept the suggestion" but "the orchestra are staying at several hotels in the city." Er, and I'm American, and not familiar with the rule in UK standards.