Subheadline: An Army of Marketers Are Ready to Help You

Acceptable English, or not?

Ungrammatical in standard written or formal spoken English. Common enough in spoken and written informal English.

Another collective to be treated as a singular.

An Army...IS Ready to help you.

All these marketers ARE ready to help you.

Never An Army of Marketers am ready to help you.

Will they give you any help? I doubt it!

Actually, I don't think there is a collective noun in this case. What's happening is that the verb is agreeing with the closest noun, even though that noun is not the subject.

I think British English is rather more relaxed on subject-verb agreement than American English. Often group nouns are treated as plural nouns, especially if the members of the group are seen as acting independently, as in this case. For instance we might say "The England cricket team is worse than Australia's" but "The England cricket team are playing badly".

goofy says, "the verb is agreeing with the closest noun, even though that noun is not the subject."

Agreed, but I'm not sure whether feel that this usage is acceptable or not.

According to The Columbia Guide to Standard American English the acceptability situation is as zmjezhd describes. They call it the "principle of proximity." Personally I find it acceptable, and would probably not even notice it.

quote:

"The England cricket team are playing badly".

I am under the impression that this isn't indicitive of UK English being more relaxed, but rather the standard form in the UK. Am I deluded?

Asa, yes, it's pretty much standard, although a few will insist on ensuring that the subject and verb agree, making the sentence appear stilted or overly pedantic to most ears or eyes.

What happens if you use "an army" or "a team"?

1. An army is something not to be wasted.

2. An army are something not to be wasted.

Or is the use of collective nouns with the indefinite article no allowed?

zmj,

I don't think that it matters if the definite or indefinite article is used. In your examples I would use 1. Example 2. just looks wrong. The army here is viewed as a unit (no pun intended) as opposed to a collection of soldiers.

quote:

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:

quote:

"The England cricket team are playing badly".

I am under the impression that this isn't indicitive of UK English being more relaxed, but rather the standard form in the UK. Am I deluded?

I can't see why anyone would not wish the subject and verb to agree, unless the result appears or sounds contrived, stilted or just plain ugly.

The England cricket team are playing badly falls into this category, in my humble opinion, though I would not wish to prescribe it for those misguided by the opposing view! [ for the too serious minded. ]

The players of the England cricket team are playing badly is my choice..

There is nothing strange about collective nouns like team or committee taking either singular or plural verbs. It's called notional agreement. Apparently using the plural verb is more common in the UK.

There is nothing strange about collective nouns like team or committee taking either singular or plural verbs.

1. It is so because people say it so.

2. It is so because I say it's so.

So?

Like so many controversies over the language, it depends on which side of the pond you live in (on.) Sometimes I think both sides deliberately try to be contrary. For example, when Otis invented an elevator, why did the British call it a lift?

quote:

I think British English is rather more relaxed on subject-verb agreement than American English.

But that doesn't seem true on this board. Pearce and Richard seem to be much more concerned about those sorts of things than the Americans here.

Elisha Graves Otis didn't invent the elevator (or lift); he invented the automatice saftey brake that meant that lifts didn't crash to the ground if their suspensory cables broke.

The lift is a far older device than Otis's 1852 invention.

As to why we call "elevators" lifts - why do Americans call petrol "gasoline"?

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:

quote:

I think British English is rather more relaxed on subject-verb agreement than American English.

But that doesn't seem true on this board. Pearce and Richard seem to be much more concerned about those sorts of things than the Americans here.

FWIW I disagree with Richard. With collective nouns I use whichever is appropriate to the context that I intend so that you sometimes hear me use singular and sometimes hear me use plural verbs. This applies to the MEDIA thread too.
I also quite happily carry this use over into my writing however formal AND into my teaching.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

The lift is a far older device than Otis's 1852 invention.

As to why we call "elevators" lifts - why do Americans call petrol "gasoline"?

I'll bet it was invented by an Englishman though.

I'll bet it was invented by an Englishman though.

Or, better yet, a West Saxon.

From the squib on notional agreement or concord:

[quote}And these from American English also illustrate: My admiration and love for her is without limit. Everybody has their own opinion of the proposal. [/quote]

I do love the expression "notional concord," but feel no concord with the usages above. In the first, there are clearly two emotions the speaker has that are without limit, and in the second, everybody has hisown opinion... Of course, then we get into a squabble about sexist language excluding women, so I say everybody has HER own opinion.

Wordmatic

"they" and "their" to refer to singular nouns or indefinite pronouns has been in use since Chaucer. It is completely normal, as far as I am concerned.

The use of "he, his, him" in this position dates from the 18th century, when it was felt that indefinite pronouns should be singular.

There are examples where substituting "he" for "they" doesn't work:

"No man goes to battle to be killed. - But they do get killed." - George Bernard Shaw, Three Plays for Puritans, 1901

"they" and "their"

I blogged about how they is the improper third person plural personal pronoun in English.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
why do Americans call petrol "gasoline"?

Why do we call it gasoline when it's nothing like the fuel we had by the same name when it was first used? Perhaps "motor fuel" is more appropriate, since it's not a gas, nor is it a rock, as suggested by "petrol." Why do the French call it "carburant," whereas the folks next door call it "Benzin," and the other folks next door call it "kraftstoff?"

quote:

Originally posted by zmjezhd:

I blogged about how they is the improper third person plural personal pronoun in English.

That was great, jim. Those Vikings have a lot to answer for.

Benzin

Etymology: named after Bertha Benz, wife of Karl Benz, German inventor, and the first person, in 5 August 1888, to drive a motorcar any great distance, 106 km. Purpose of the drive? To see her mother and show her husband that his invention was a good thing and he should market it better. (I'm sure that somebody can tell us who the real first British person was.) Meanwhile, in London, the serial murderer known as Leather Apron or Jack the Ripper, was about to stalk and kill prostitutes on foot, though there is some conjecture that he may have taken the Tube to the East End to do his deeds.

quote:

his invention was a good thing and he should market it better.

Having perfected his horseless carriage, Karl Benz kept it in production, largely unchanged, for about 15 years. That would be a creditable achievement nowadays; at that time of massive development in automotive design, it was amazing.

quote:

Originally posted by zmjezhd:
Benzin

Etymology: named after Bertha_Benz

So a benzine ring was so named because Bertha had five sides?

As for hubby Karl's invention, a Frenchman named Cugnot built an "automobile" over a century earlier, but it used a steam engine. Maybe that's why the French still use "CV," or "Chevaux Vapeur" to mean "horsepower." They're still steamed over Benz's getting all the credit!

Asa of the cheveux vapeur, since my hair has evaporated

Although Benz is popullarly supposed to have been the inventor of the internal combsution engined car, a practical car was built and run by Siegfried Marcus in 1875. His second model still exists and still runs. http://www.asme.org/Communities/History/Landmarks/Siegf...rcus_Car_ca_1875.cfm

Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot's steam vehicle (built around 1769) wasn't a car in the true sense; it was supposed to be a tractor to haul artillery. Although it still exists, nobody's tried to operate it for over two centuries - rather a wise move, I suggest.

There are several claimants for the honour of making the first British car, but the first to be exhibited at the Crystal Palace show (in 1896) was the Knight, built by Henry Knight of Farnham. http://www.3wheelers.com/knight.html

Britain lagged rather in the development of the motor car, some say because of the shocking state of our roads at the turn of the 19th century. Remember, after we invented the railway, there was a massive growth of railways and few towns of any moment were far from a station. Roads were probably as poor, or poorer, than they had been a hundred years before, once the mail coach services succumbed to railway competition, and there was no need for long-distance highways.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Richard English,

Although Benz is popullarly supposed to have been the inventor of the internal combsution engined car, a practical car was built and run by Siegfried Marcus in 1875.

Folks should note that I was careful not to call Bertha's husband the inventor of the motorcar.

[Corrected typo.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

quote:

Remember, after we invented the railway ...

The concept of moving vehicles on rails long predated the British; it was used for example in moving mine-cars on tracks. What the British did pioneer, however, was the use of steam power to move those vehicles. And major credit to them for that.

quote:

The concept of moving vehicles on rails long predated the British; it was used for example in moving mine-cars on tracks.

Of course. And even before that there were examples of railways and plateways in other countries.

But the concept of a complete system - the prime mover, the tracks, the vehicles, and the stations and termini was a British invention.

One of the first complete systems was actually horse drawn - the Surrey Iron Railway - which opened in 1803 and was probably the first ever public railway. Some of its original metals can still be seen at Purley and Merstham. Full details here http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paulb143/sir.htm