TromboneChat

Not sure why, but I was just thinking about this this morning....

We say, "He finds the chicken is too dry", but "They find the chicken is too dry".
But often times, you see written things like, "A group of scientists find that chicken is dry".

This is incorrect grammar, is it not?

Seems like it should be "A group of scientists finds...", since we're basically saying, "A group finds..."

We're referring to "A group" of scientists, not the "multiple" scientists themselves, eh?

ah, the joys of English grammar...

Quote from: davdud101 on Mar 20, 2017, 09:26AMSeems like it should be "A group of scientists finds...", since we're basically saying, "A group finds..."

Yes.

Quote from: bonenick on Mar 20, 2017, 09:42AMah, the joys of English grammar...
Bingo. We've got some stuff that I find to be just silly.

But English phonetics is where we really take the cake in the "making as much confusion as possible"-game.

I've noticed the same thing, Davdud. There must be a rule that covers it.

"A large number of people are ignoring the signs."

The subject of the sentence is 'number'('of people' is a modifying phrase), but "A large number of people is ignoring the signs" sounds ridiculous.

My ear tells me that if it sounds like you're talking about the 'people', then 'a number of' functions as an adjective, like 'many'.

"A group of" could function in the same way. In some cases, you're really talking about the group--"A New York group of scientists has issued a paper." In other cases it's the other way around.

I'm kind of feeling my way through this.

QuoteA collective noun refers to a whole group as a single entity but also to the members of that group.

A collective noun names a group of individuals or things with a singular form. Examples of collective nouns are: faculty, herd, team. There are collective nouns for people, animals, objects, and concepts. The use of a singular or plural verb depends on the context of the sentence. If one is referring to the whole group as a single entity, then the singular verb is best: The school board has called a special session. When a group noun is used with a singular determiner (e.g., a/an, each, every, this, that), singular verbs and pronouns are normal: The team is away this weekend; they have a good chance of winning. There are other contexts where the plural verb is more natural: My family are always fighting among themselves. When the individuals in the collection or group receive the emphasis, the plural verb is acceptable. Generally, however, in American English, collective nouns take singular verbs. In British English, collective nouns are more often treated as plurals that take plural verbs.
[emphasis added]

I wasn't too far off. I would go farther (further?) and say that the plural verb is strongly preferable, not just acceptable, in some sentences.

http://blog.dictionary.com/collective-nouns/

QuoteGenerally, however, in American English, collective nouns take singular verbs. In British English, collective nouns are more often treated as plurals that take plural verbs.
The one I find jarring is a British journalist writing something like, "The United States are planning to...."


A quick scan of the Constitution doesn't show me a clear case either way of it being seen as singular or plural at that time. 

The phrase i keep seeing is "The United States shall..." which could be interpreted either way.

Here's a graph of the prevalence of "The United States is" vs. "The United States are" in English lit...

Google Ngram Viewer


Since about the Civil War, the US has been more "is" than "are".

English grammar is different from American grammar.  In England a company or business entity is referred to as a plural while in the US it is referred to as a singular.  Same goes for organized groups.  They say "The government have ..." and we say The government has ..."

Quote from: BGuttman on Mar 20, 2017, 11:05AMEnglish grammar is different from American grammar.  In England a company or business entity is referred to as a plural while in the US it is referred to as a singular.  Same goes for organized groups.  They say "The government have ..." and we say The government has ..."


I'll note that even in British English lit, "the government has" is more prominent.


Perhaps there is an elitist appeal for the users of "have"?

"Gryffindor win!!!!"

All the American kids is scratching they're heads like "whuuut?".

I remember being very disturbed by that line in Harry Potter. Because Gryffindor wins. They don't win.  .... wait.... It doesn't win. ... wait. ... Gryffindor don't wins

There we go

The British examples are explained in the little blurb I posted--apparently the British are more likely to use a plural verb for a collective noun.

George Bernard Shaw called us "two nations divided by a common language."

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Mar 20, 2017, 11:15AM"Gryffindor win!!!!"

All the American kids is scratching they're heads like "whuuut?".

I remember being very disturbed by that line in Harry Potter. Because Gryffindor wins. They don't win.  .... wait.... It doesn't win. ... wait. ...

I like that last bit. You might have just revealed the wisdom of the English--we're likely to refer to Gryffindor as 'they', not 'it', in that context. The second example was waylaid by the word doesn't, because that word satisfies the need for a singular verb. In other words, "It wins".

Gryffindor don't wins. Gryffindor win.

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Mar 20, 2017, 11:33AMGryffindor don't wins. Gryffindor win.

LOL! You may have come up with a statement that's impossible to properly make.

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Mar 20, 2017, 11:15AM"Gryffindor win!!!!"

All the American kids is scratching they're heads like "whuuut?".

I remember being very disturbed by that line in Harry Potter. Because Gryffindor wins. They don't win.  .... wait.... It doesn't win. ... wait. ... Gryffindor don't wins

There we go

Looking at this though, we DO we say (in the case that Gryffindor is reffered to in singular) "Gryffindor wins", but adding the "doesn't" make it so that "Gryffindor doesn't WIN"? Obviously we don't typically say "Gryffindor win not", like in other languages, but we also sort of remove the reference to whether it's still singular or plural (if I'm thinking straight). Sounds just like an evolution of grammar thing regarding the words don't and doesn't.


Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Mar 20, 2017, 11:33AMGryffindor don't wins. Gryffindor win.

Funniest thing I've read all day!

'A group of scientists' is singular, 'scientists' is (usually) plural.

'A group of scientists finds a cure for cancer'  You are referring to a single identifiable group.
'Scientists find a cure for cancer'    You are referring several individually identifiable scientists.

It's "a groups of scientist go to the park"

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Mar 20, 2017, 11:15AM"Gryffindor win!!!!"
 Again, this referrers to individually identifiable members of Gryffindor, not a single entity.  Sure Gryffindor are a collective, but not all members of Gryffindor played the match.  If you wanted to use the singular, group the Quiddich team together and say "The Gryffindor team wins!!!!"

this is so much easier in spanish.

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Mar 20, 2017, 12:32PMIt's "a groups of scientist go to the park"
Well that's jut bent....

QuoteYou may have come up with a statement that's impossible to properly make.
Is there a whiff of a split infinitive here?

Some British people think some Americans are careless with the English language.  (Not all, in either case.)
And some Brits think that some other Brits are careless with the English language.
Use of language easily becomes a cypher for educational and social status.
There are people who spend their entire lives working on this kind of issue.

Quote from: Exzaclee on Mar 20, 2017, 12:40PMthis is so much easier in spanish.

...or swedish. The verb does not change in swedish depending on who wins (or who win?). In Sweden everybody is a winner (oops!! everybody is a group too, isn't it..oh no another one right away. Can't make a post without making at least one new example).

Swedish:
Han vinner.
Hon vinner.
Den vinner.
De vinner.
Vi vinner.
Ni vinner.
Gryffindor vinner!!!

Interesting topic
/Tom

I just stick with:

They win!

Quote from: watermailonman on Mar 20, 2017, 01:08PM...or swedish. The verb does not change in swedish depending on who wins (or who win?). In Sweden everybody is a winner (oops!! everybody is a group too, isn't it..oh no another one right away. Can't make a post without making at least one new example).

//
Gryffindor vinner!!!

Interesting topic
/Tom

That's the most particular language (or group - knowing Norwegian is the same) I was referring to.

Must be a COMPLETE MESS in Finnish, knowing that they have the craziest number of grammatical rules and slight variations in spelling on completely different words based on such tiny details.

Quote from: jack on Mar 20, 2017, 12:51PMIs there a whiff of a split infinitive here?

Some British people think some Americans are careless with the English language.  (Not all, in either case.)
And some Brits think that some other Brits are careless with the English language.
Use of language easily becomes a cypher for educational and social status.
There are people who spend their entire lives working on this kind of issue.

It is a split infinitive. I don't mind them, especially in informal writing. I just use them by ear. Like sentence fragments.

"To go boldly where no man has gone before"? I don't think so.

The funny thing is, we are hung up on all these grammar rules as if they have been engraved in stone since English was a language instead of having been developed in the 19th and early 20th century.  Look at writings from before that time.  Spelling wasn't fixed.  Capitalization wasn't fixed.  Punctuation wasn't fixed.  All these 'rules' were developed in by English professors trying to make English adhere to Latin rules.

Quote from: bhcordova on Mar 20, 2017, 05:50PMThe funny thing is, we are hung up on all these grammar rules as if they have been engraved in stone since English was a language instead of having been developed in the 19th and early 20th century.  Look at writings from before that time.  Spelling wasn't fixed.  Capitalization wasn't fixed.  Punctuation wasn't fixed.  All these 'rules' were developed in by English professors trying to make English adhere to Latin rules.

But even then - you've gota admit that it IS nicer to have a slightly more coherent structure to a language. English, in all its flavors, seems to have pretty stable rules for each variation. It's just that people don't seem to use 'em!

Quote from: bhcordova on Mar 20, 2017, 05:50PMThe funny thing is, we are hung up on all these grammar rules as if they have been engraved in stone since English was a language instead of having been developed in the 19th and early 20th century.  Look at writings from before that time.  Spelling wasn't fixed.  Capitalization wasn't fixed.  Punctuation wasn't fixed.  All these 'rules' were developed in by English professors trying to make English adhere to Latin rules.
Hell, capitalization and spelling were matters of style.
 
And don't forget the fact that "proper" English is very much a matter of consensus. If a given word or phrase or even the use of a grammatical pattern becomes common enough, it's adopted (not as sure about grammar, though it seems inherent to phraseology) and becomes proper English, or at least an accepted alternative.

English is great because it usually makes sense no matter how horribly it is butchered. There are some languages in which you become unintelligible just because of an accent.

In English, you can literally string words together caveman style and still be understood. I think that there are no other languages where two non native speakers from two different parts of the world can meet half way and exchange ideas in non proficient language like English is capable of.

Quote from: davdud101 on Mar 20, 2017, 09:30PMBut even then - you've gota admit that it IS nicer to have a slightly more coherent structure to a language. English, in all its flavors, seems to have pretty stable rules for each variation. It's just that people don't seem to use 'em!


Nah, that's not quite right. Spanish and Italian have very stable structures and pronunciation rules that vary hardly at all - there is so much variation in English that the "rules" seem to occur with less frequency than the exceptions. English is a crawling chaos slithering into the sea, a germanic language masquerading as some Gaulic-Latin mushmouth of harsh sounds and poor spelling choices. English is definitely an "ear" language, one that has to be heard to get exactly right.

Quote from: Exzaclee on Mar 21, 2017, 05:51AMNah, that's not quite right. Spanish and Italian have very stable structures and pronunciation rules that vary hardly at all - there is so much variation in English that the "rules" seem to occur with less frequency than the exceptions. English is a crawling chaos slithering into the sea, a germanic language masquerading as some Gaulic-Latin mushmouth of harsh sounds and poor spelling choices. English is definitely an "ear" language, one that has to be heard to get exactly right.


Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Mar 21, 2017, 05:04AMEnglish is great because it usually makes sense no matter how horribly it is butchered. There are some languages in which you become unintelligible just because of an accent.

In English, you can literally string words together caveman style and still be understood. I think that there are no other languages where two non native speakers from two different parts of the world can meet half way and exchange ideas in non proficient language like English is capable of.


I have to agree with both of these assessments of English.  There are rules to cover most uses of the language, but they are obscure and the language is such that you can certainly get by without them.  So much of the understanding of English comes though context, implication and inference.  The spoken form an the written form can be strikingly different simply because the implied/inferred meaning can change dramatically through tone of voice, timing or inflection.  I've been told Japanese is much like this too.

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Mar 21, 2017, 05:04AMEnglish is great because it usually makes sense no matter how horribly it is butchered. There are some languages in which you become unintelligible just because of an accent.

In English, you can literally string words together caveman style and still be understood.


I'll agree if "usually" just means more-than-50%.  I've heard lots of English that was pretty much incomprehensible. By native-born Americans, even. 

Japanese has extremely rigid, regular grammar. Like latin, you tack "endings" (they're really grammar particles) onto the end of words or phrases to show how they are used in a sentence. This allows for word order that is essentially the same as latin or an algebraic formula -- it defaults to SOV, but you can put them in almost any order as long as the parts are denoted with the proper particles. This is useful for poetry, but in speech word order is more regular.

As for inflection and timing in japanese, there are a few similar sounding words that are differentiated with inflection: candy vs rain, bridge vs chopsticks but context will differentiate for you.

I love that language.

Quote from: robcat2075 on Mar 21, 2017, 07:18AM
I'll agree if "usually" just means more-than-50%.  I've heard lots of English that was pretty much incomprehensible. By native-born Americans, even. 

Si 

Si