| Author |
Message |
Arne H. Wilstrup
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:44 am
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
"the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:MPG.1dd84e6b10c6975498a1fc@news.ntlworld.com...
| Quote: |
Don't misunderstand - "the wise" is perfectly good
English. "I light
a firework - the wise stand back". But it's always
plural.
that too  I am only glad when corrected - i.e. talking |
about English grammar, of course (I'm married )
--
Arne H.Wilstrup
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:53 am
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
On 06 Nov 2005, TakenEvent wrote
-snip-
| Quote: | The Government are planning new tax increases.
It are?
|
Yes, indeed they are.
I can't tell from your message headers where you're posting from,
but if it's from the UK you're in a tiny minority in your rejection
of that construction.
For what it's worth, "the government are planning" sounded
deeply illiterate to my ear when I moved to the UK, but I
discovered that it's both idiomatic and grammatically acceptable
here; I don't notice it any more.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arne H. Wilstrup
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:07 am
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
"TakenEvent" <lightbulbsnickety@chartermi.net> skrev i en
meddelelse news:Z3rbf.9870$7s1.3266@fe04.lga...
| Quote: |
"Arne H. Wilstrup" <detfaarduejatvide@invalid.dk> wrote in
message
news:436e25cb$0$84023$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
"Collective nouns are countable nouns like
administration,
army, audience, class, committee, company,crew, family,
firm, government, group, jury, management, party,press,
public,staff and team. The singular form of these nouns
refers to a group of people. When collective nouns in the
singular functions as subject, they can be accompanied
either by
A. a singular verb, a personal pronoun or determiner like
it
and its and the relative pronoun which, which all
emphaxize
the impersonal unit referred to by the noun:
"My company sells farm machinery. The committee controls
council spending. Her family has been tracked back to
1300... etc"
B. by a plural verb, personal pronouns and determiners
like
they, them, their(s) and relatives like who, whom, which
al
emphasize the individuals referred to by the noun:
"The company are sending me on a management course".
The company is sending. "Company," in this case, is not
necessarily a
collective noun.
|
If the sentence emphasized the individuals, it is plural
according to my grammar-book. It is of course not an
argument in itself, but it is not a disadvantage either to
have such a reference
| Quote: |
A group of us are going up to London for the day.
Said, but usually as "A group of us'r goin'..." This is
because the
sentence is referencing the behavior of individuals. If,
as an established
group, 10 people collectively planned to go to London
together, you might
want to consider saying "The group is going..."
|
yes - but as I stipulated, group is a collective noun and as
such can be accompained either by a singular or a plural
verb etc.
| Quote: |
My family are all early risers.
The preceding sentence doesn't illustrate your point.
It's understood that
you're talking about the numerous people each being early
risers -- i.e.
"The members of my family are all early risers." It isn't
technically
correct to say "The members of my family is all early
risers." People do
it, but they sound awful. You could say, "My family is
early to rise."
|
It might be a colloquial way of putting it. But as the
grammar explains the example is used in English in order to
emphasize the individuals referred to by the noun.
| Quote: | The Government are planning new tax increases.
It are?
|
yes -same explaination as before - it is the institution The
Government, which consits of serveral members and it is
these members who are planning new tax increases.
You also have nouns which alway appear with plural verbs
even if they are single items - so that is not strange.
E.g. cattle, clergy, gentry, people and police - nouns like
this resemble collective nouns in that they refer to a
group, but they do not have plural forms, and they always
appear with plural verbs:
They landed gentry are those who own land from which they
obtain their income. People enjoy reading about the rich and
famous. The police are taking a firm line on criminals.
And: "Some of these (cattle, clergy, people, police) may
furthermore appear with plural numerals when they refer to
heads of cattle, clergymen, persons or to policemen/-women
respectively.
He has three thousand cattle. Over 100 clergy have signed
the petition. 50 people were freed in the raid. There were
over 100 police on duty at the demonstration.
But you do not have to believ me - just look at the Oxford
Advanced Learner's Dictionary from 2005 has: "The Government
has / have been considering further tax cuts. "
I don't say that it is alway so, but I just say that the
sentence of the Government is absolutely correct according
to ALD and my grammar. :-)
--
Arne H.Wilstrup
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TakenEvent
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:10 am
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
"the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1dd8504336c2762598a1fd@news.ntlworld.com...
| Quote: | Arne H. Wilstrup <detfaarduejatvide@invalid.dk> spake thusly:
"TakenEvent" <lightbulbsnickety@chartermi.net> skrev i en
meddelelse news:qGqbf.9860$7s1.8066@fe04.lga...
That's a regional thing. What you say holds true in
NAmerEng but
not in BrEng, where collective nouns regularly attract a
plural verb.
"The cabinet have discussed this point", "Chelsea are
unbeatable", and "the family are" are perfectly normal and
standard constructions in both formal and informal BrEng.
It certainly depends on the sentence. I wouldn't say "My
family are going to be there."
But I would (noting that I am British).
|
I could hear that if someone was talking about several nuclear units linked
to some degree by lineage and surname/maiden surname joining up for a
reunion, perhaps, with some other family. Maybe for a feud, too. Like in
the mountains, most likely.
But y'all can say it hows'ever you want to.
| Quote: |
but would you say: My family are early risers? This is
correctly according to my English grammar book.
Yes.
And according to this, you can also say: Her family has been
traced back to 1300 -
Yes. But I might also say "Her family have been traced back to
1300". It depends on the context, although in this case the
difference is very slight. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TakenEvent
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:12 am
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
"Arne H. Wilstrup" <detfaarduejatvide@invalid.dk> wrote in message
news:436e3e51$0$84014$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
| Quote: |
"TakenEvent" <lightbulbsnickety@chartermi.net> skrev i en
meddelelse news:qGqbf.9860$7s1.8066@fe04.lga...
That's a regional thing. What you say holds true in
NAmerEng but
not in BrEng, where collective nouns regularly attract a
plural
verb.
"The cabinet have discussed this point", "Chelsea are
unbeatable",
and "the family are" are perfectly normal and standard
constructions in both formal and informal BrEng.
It certainly depends on the sentence. I wouldn't say "My
family are going
to be there."
but would you say: My family are early risers? This is
correctly according to my English grammar book.
|
I wouldn't, but Harvey might. Also, "This is [correct] according to..."
| Quote: |
And according to this, you can also say: Her family has been
traced back to 1300 -
|
Yes, yes you can.
| Quote: |
As the book says: "When collective nouns in the singular
function as a subject, they can be accompanied either by a
singular verb, a personal pronoun or determinder like it,
its and the relative pronoun, which all emphasize the
impersonal unit referred to by the noun and by plural verb,
personal pronouns and determinders like they, them, their(s)
and relatives like who, whom, which all emphasize the
individuals referred to by the noun"
I think it makes a difference if it is understood that
many individual
people are being referenced, as in "The cabinet [members]
have discussed..."
I wouldn't expect to hear "The cabinet are made up of 8-12
members."
But still, you can hear: The Government are planning new tax
increases.
|
Harvey says that's normal. I think it sounds, as Harvey put it, what was
it..."deeply illiterate." Is it just laziness spawning such weirdness?
Nothing wrong with it, as long as people go with it, I guess.
| Quote: |
No, it is not that easy. 
--
Arne H.Wilstrup
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arne H. Wilstrup
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:20 am
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
"the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:MPG.1dd8504336c2762598a1fd@news.ntlworld.com...
| Quote: |
And according to this, you can also say: Her family has
been
traced back to 1300 -
Yes. But I might also say "Her family have been traced
back to
1300". It depends on the context, although in this case
the
difference is very slight.
|
I quite agree - as I stipulated ealier in this thread you
can use both - and therfore I disagree with TakenEvent when
he says that one cannot say:
"The Government are planning new tax increases." because he
says that you cannot say "it are" - which you cannot, but in
this case it is correct according to ALD - it has an example
as follows:
"The Government has / have been considering further tax
cuts."
So in this sentence above one could say: The Government has
been considering further tax cuts and the Government have
been considering further tax cuts.
In the last sentence you might as well claim that you cannot
say "have" because that would be "it have" instead of "it
has" -
I once won a bet with an Englishman who claimed that you
could not say "I were" - I said that you could use it in the
subjunctive, but he did not agree.
I had to prove it right by showing him the song: If you were
the only girl in the world and I were the only boy"
So sometimes a real amateur as I can see something that
native speakers do not know -but I must admit that this is
extremely seldom. I know that I have a lot to learn about
English writings and speaking, so I still am humble in my
questions (I hope) - I do not hope I sound to clever in
this, but I can assure you that even in Danish language
groups there are discussions about how to write Danish as
well. I am grateful for every thing I learn from this group.
So thank you all.
--
Arne H.Wilstrup |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:27 am
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
On 06 Nov 2005, TakenEvent wrote
| Quote: | "Arne H. Wilstrup" <detfaarduejatvide@invalid.dk> wrote in
message news:436e3e51$0$84014$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
But still, you can hear: The Government are planning new tax
increases.
Harvey says that's normal. I think it sounds, as Harvey put
it, what was it..."deeply illiterate." Is it just laziness
spawning such weirdness? Nothing wrong with it, as long as
people go with it, I guess.
|
I don't think it's laziness at all: it's just an illustration --
and to a North American probably the most dissonant example -- of
different forms of English developing different grammatical
conventions.
It's like the conventions as to when one can use the word "gotten"
and when one can't: the usage is entirely natural to a North
American, but the word is not used in BrEng (and thus the
conventions of its use are a mystery).
For what it's worth, if you don't like "the government are
planning", here's a Scottish document that should curdle the milk
on your coco puffs: it includes "the government seek", "the
government do not believe", "the way in which the government
ensure", and a bunch of other plurals. Enjoy:
http://www.archive.official-
documents.co.uk/document/scottish/ksmoving/ch5.htm
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:39 am
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
Arne H. Wilstrup <detfaarduejatvide@invalid.dk> spake thusly:
| Quote: | I once won a bet with an Englishman who claimed that you
could not say "I were" - I said that you could use it in the
subjunctive, but he did not agree.
I had to prove it right by showing him the song: If you were
the only girl in the world and I were the only boy"
|
It's also perfectly normal Northern English dialect.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nancy13g
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:43 am
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
the Omrud wrote:
| Quote: | Arne H. Wilstrup <detfaarduejatvide@invalid.dk> spake thusly:
I once won a bet with an Englishman who claimed that you
could not say "I were" - I said that you could use it in the
subjunctive, but he did not agree.
I had to prove it right by showing him the song: If you were
the only girl in the world and I were the only boy"
It's also perfectly normal Northern English dialect.
|
It's also perfectly normal Broadway musical dialect: "If I were a rich
man ..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:46 am
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
nancy13g <nancy13g@verizon.net> spake thusly:
| Quote: |
the Omrud wrote:
Arne H. Wilstrup <detfaarduejatvide@invalid.dk> spake thusly:
I once won a bet with an Englishman who claimed that you
could not say "I were" - I said that you could use it in the
subjunctive, but he did not agree.
I had to prove it right by showing him the song: If you were
the only girl in the world and I were the only boy"
It's also perfectly normal Northern English dialect.
It's also perfectly normal Broadway musical dialect: "If I were a rich
man ..."
|
That's not dialect - that's Standard English conditional. The
Northern English version is not reliant on the conditional:
"I were feeling a bit ill yesterday."
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arne H. Wilstrup
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:02 am
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
"the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:MPG.1dd85fb5e58d191398a207@news.ntlworld.com...
| Quote: | "I were feeling a bit ill yesterday."
|
subjunctive?
--
Arne H.Wilstrup |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:15 am
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
Arne H. Wilstrup <detfaarduejatvide@invalid.dk> wrote:
| Quote: | "the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:MPG.1dd85fb5e58d191398a207@news.ntlworld.com...
"I were feeling a bit ill yesterday."
subjunctive?
|
Not that one. The other examples given, where things were contrary to
fact, that's subjunctive. (With the warning that there is not total
unanimity as to what that label applies to.)
If you were the only girl in the world and I were the only boy
If I were a rich man ..."
--
Best -- Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TakenEvent
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:20 am
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
"Arne H. Wilstrup" <detfaarduejatvide@invalid.dk> wrote in message
news:436e4688$0$84019$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
| Quote: |
"TakenEvent" <lightbulbsnickety@chartermi.net> skrev i en
meddelelse news:Z3rbf.9870$7s1.3266@fe04.lga...
"Arne H. Wilstrup" <detfaarduejatvide@invalid.dk> wrote in
message
news:436e25cb$0$84023$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
"Collective nouns are countable nouns like
administration,
army, audience, class, committee, company,crew, family,
firm, government, group, jury, management, party,press,
public,staff and team. The singular form of these nouns
refers to a group of people. When collective nouns in the
singular functions as subject, they can be accompanied
either by
A. a singular verb, a personal pronoun or determiner like
it
and its and the relative pronoun which, which all
emphaxize
the impersonal unit referred to by the noun:
"My company sells farm machinery. The committee controls
council spending. Her family has been tracked back to
1300... etc"
B. by a plural verb, personal pronouns and determiners
like
they, them, their(s) and relatives like who, whom, which
al
emphasize the individuals referred to by the noun:
"The company are sending me on a management course".
The company is sending. "Company," in this case, is not
necessarily a
collective noun.
If the sentence emphasized the individuals, it is plural
according to my grammar-book. It is of course not an
argument in itself, but it is not a disadvantage either to
have such a reference :-)
A group of us are going up to London for the day.
Said, but usually as "A group of us'r goin'..." This is
because the
sentence is referencing the behavior of individuals. If,
as an established
group, 10 people collectively planned to go to London
together, you might
want to consider saying "The group is going..."
yes - but as I stipulated, group is a collective noun and as
such can be accompained either by a singular or a plural
verb etc.
My family are all early risers.
The preceding sentence doesn't illustrate your point.
It's understood that
you're talking about the numerous people each being early
risers -- i.e.
"The members of my family are all early risers." It isn't
technically
correct to say "The members of my family is all early
risers." People do
it, but they sound awful. You could say, "My family is
early to rise."
It might be a colloquial way of putting it. But as the
grammar explains the example is used in English in order to
emphasize the individuals referred to by the noun.
The Government are planning new tax increases.
It are?
yes -same explaination as before -
|
Ghastly, man. I couldn't get used to that. Harvey is a much bigger sport
than I. The government is an "It." As soon as it becomes a "They," it's
time for therapy.
"They're watching me; I can sense them all around me, everywhere I go..."
| Quote: | it is the institution The
Government, which consits of serveral members and it is
these members who are planning new tax increases.
|
You even said it yourself: "...it is the institution..."
You'd do better to stick with the Omrud and Harvey on this one. Around
here, anything to do with taxes is blamed solely on the President,
regardless of the involvement of elected representatives.
| Quote: |
You also have nouns which alway appear with plural verbs
even if they are single items - so that is not strange.
E.g. cattle, clergy, gentry, people and police - nouns like
this resemble collective nouns in that they refer to a
group, but they do not have plural forms, and they always
appear with plural verbs:
They landed gentry are those who own land from which they
obtain their income. People enjoy reading about the rich and
famous. The police are taking a firm line on criminals.
|
Actually, there is nothing wrong with clergies, gentries, and peoples -- in
the right context, of course.
Not to be critical, but you should consider running a spelling check on your
posts. You have a lot of typos. Also, a brief glance would catch things
like "They landed gentry..." I'm sure you meant "The."
| Quote: |
And: "Some of these (cattle, clergy, people, police) may
furthermore appear with plural numerals when they refer to
heads of cattle, clergymen, persons or to policemen/-women
respectively.
He has three thousand cattle. Over 100 clergy have signed
the petition. 50 people were freed in the raid. There were
over 100 police on duty at the demonstration.
But you do not have to believ me - just look at the Oxford
Advanced Learner's Dictionary from 2005 has: "The Government
has / have been considering further tax cuts. "
I don't say that it is alway so, but I just say that the
sentence of the Government is absolutely correct according
to ALD and my grammar. :-)
--
|
It may be a habit of the people, and it may even be accepted practice where
you live, but I think it's fundamentally flawed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TakenEvent
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:31 am
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
"Arne H. Wilstrup" <detfaarduejatvide@invalid.dk> wrote in message
news:436e496b$0$84014$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
| Quote: |
"the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:MPG.1dd8504336c2762598a1fd@news.ntlworld.com...
And according to this, you can also say: Her family has
been
traced back to 1300 -
Yes. But I might also say "Her family have been traced
back to
1300". It depends on the context, although in this case
the
difference is very slight.
I quite agree - as I stipulated ealier in this thread you
can use both - and therfore I disagree with TakenEvent when
he says that one cannot say:
"The Government are planning new tax increases." because he
says that you cannot say "it are" - which you cannot, but in
this case it is correct according to ALD - it has an example
as follows:
"The Government has / have been considering further tax
cuts."
So in this sentence above one could say: The Government has
been considering further tax cuts and the Government have
been considering further tax cuts.
In the last sentence you might as well claim that you cannot
say "have" because that would be "it have" instead of "it
has" -
I once won a bet with an Englishman who claimed that you
could not say "I were" - I said that you could use it in the
subjunctive, but he did not agree.
I had to prove it right by showing him the song: If you were
the only girl in the world and I were the only boy"
|
I would caution you against trying to learn proper English from music,
though. Lyricists are notorious for their liberal use of poetic license.
| Quote: | So sometimes a real amateur as I can see something that
native speakers do not know -but I must admit that this is
extremely seldom.
|
You're probably better tutored in the fundamentals than most native
speakers, who don't learn it as a logical process, but as however it is
their parents speak. I'd bet than 95% of Americans couldn't even define
"subjunctive." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arne H. Wilstrup
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:32 am
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
"TakenEvent" <lightbulbsnickety@chartermi.net> skrev i en
meddelelse news:ZHsbf.9887$7s1.5399@fe04.lga...
I go..."
| Quote: |
it is the institution The
Government, which consits of serveral members and it is
these members who are planning new tax increases.
You even said it yourself: "...it is the institution..."'
|
Yes, but it has nothing to do with the example
| Quote: |
You'd do better to stick with the Omrud and Harvey on this
one. Around
here, anything to do with taxes is blamed solely on the
President,
regardless of the involvement of elected representatives.
|
probably, but in UK you can say what I wrote. Cf. ALD
| Quote: |
Not to be critical, but you should consider running a
spelling check on your
posts. You have a lot of typos. Also, a brief glance
would catch things
like "They landed gentry..." I'm sure you meant "The."
|
you are right - but I do not use a spelling check here, as I
write directly to the news group. I am quite aware of my
lousy English, and I am grateful for every reminder of my
spelling mistakes or grammatical errors, but when I write in
this group, I must admit that I am often too lazy to be very
fuzzy about it. But I shall take your remarks into
consideration, so thank you for reminding me.
| Quote: |
I don't say that it is alway so, but I just say that the
sentence of the Government is absolutely correct
according
to ALD and my grammar. :-)
It may be a habit of the people, and it may even be
accepted practice where
you live, but I think it's fundamentally flawed.
|
Well, Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary is THE world's
authority on the English language, but I am open to another
opinion :-)
Would you recommend another? ))
--
Arne H.Wilstrup |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in