# Collective nouns - a group of people + singular or plural verb



## Dalian

Hello people,

If I make a sentence starting with "a group of people...", should the predicate agree with "group" or "people"? Like:

A group of people is playing soccer.
or
A group of people are playing soccer.

So which one is grammatically correct?
Thank you for your help.

Regards
Dalian


----------



## rominetimma

In English, I would say *A group of people are playing soccer.* Using 'is' could be correct grammatically, but if it is, it is never used anymore. 'Are' sounds right.


----------



## Kevman

I agree. "*...are playing soccer*" sounds best.

In American English I think you can get away with "...is playing soccer", which would emphasize that "A group is playing", but I don't think that's as acceptable in British, where they tend to treat words like 'team' and 'band' as plurals.


----------



## thacerine

The irony here is that I know a lot of people, if they were grading a paper or something like that, would mark "is" as correct and "are" as wrong, yet if the sentence were actually spoken, "is" would sound completely out of place.


----------



## rominetimma

Well, we're not graded on how we verbally speak, most of the time... 

One/A group=is
People=are
One/A group + people = are

Too bad it wasn't that way? So I guess this makes "is" gramatically correct?


----------



## Random1

I would probably leave out "the people." What else would be playing soccer? If I saw dogs playing soccer I wouldn't say "there is a group of dogs playing soccer," more like "HOLY SH!T THOSE DOGS ARE PLAYING SOCCER!!"

So I would just say "A group is playing soccer (over there)."


----------



## brian

It depends on whether the group, in the context of the sentence, is/are being treated as a group or as individuals.  I will provide examples using _class_ first:

_The class receive candy for participating in discussions.

_Here, I use the plural "receive" because I speak of the class as a plural noun composed of individual students, and these indivudal students _each_ receive a candy [well, whoever in the class participates].  If I had said, _The class receives candy..._, I would mean that the class as a whole receives a sum of candy (to dispense among themselves).

_The class goes on a field trip once a year._

Since the class must travel together as a single group, and since they probably do not travel individually, I use the singular.

Now as to group of people:

_A group of people is playing soccer._

I use the singular because they are not each playing soccer by themselves in a group, each to his own game of soccer! Absurd!  Rather, they play soccer together as one group in one game.

I know it sounds crazy, but this is how I _think_ it works.  Here's another example that doesn't sound as awkward:

_A group of people is forming around that tragic accident._

Others may disagree, but this sounds natural to me.  I would not say _A group of people are forming._ Some final evidence that I think "is" is right is if you flip around the sentence: _There is a group of people playing soccer._  This sounds natural to me, too.  _There are a group of people_ sounds awkward.  And there are many more words like "group" and "class":

_That flock of birds is in a V-formation.
The bag of onions is on the table.
...

_
Brian


----------



## Otter

I agree with Brian, although I don't know how many people would still say, "the class receive. . . "


----------



## modus.irrealis

brian8733 said:
			
		

> _A group of people is forming around that tragic accident._


This is a good example. I don't think "are" is even possible here, at least not for me. But I think Kevman is right in that this puts the focus on the group and since only groups can form and people can't, you have to use "is."

But when you're not specifically focusing on the group, I think "a group of" is just like "a lot of," "a bunch of," "a couple of," etc. where I don't think anyone would demand "is" with those constructions.


----------



## panjandrum

If you use the forum search and search English Only for
*singular plural collective*
you will find 35 threads, many of which discuss this topic.

Singular or plural

is a good one. 

It is not easy to explain because, as Brian said, it depends


----------



## bartonig

You can avoid the question by:

_There's a group of people playing soccer._

Or,

_What can you see?_
_A group of people playing soccer._


----------



## maxiogee

bartonig said:
			
		

> You can avoid the question by:
> 
> _There's a group of people playing soccer._



"There's" is only an abridgement of "There is". It may be sneaking into use as a replacement for "There are four people at the door" — "There's four people at the door", but I wouldn't want to see it written down.


----------



## sjofre

I think the question is that "group" is the subject of the phrase, not people. And group is a singular word. If it was "groups of people", it would be "groups (subject) of people are playing soccer" but it is only ONE group so it is "a group of people IS playing soccer".

That's what I think... but I'm not an english native speaker.


----------



## panjandrum

sjofre said:
			
		

> I think the question is that "group" is the subject of the phrase, not people. And group is a singular word. If it was "groups of people", it would be "groups (subject) of people are playing soccer" but it is only ONE group so it is "a group of people IS playing soccer".
> 
> That's what I think... but I'm not an english native speaker.


That is logical, but unfortunately does not represent how native speakers speak or write.

Brian8733's short comment ...





> It depends on whether the group, in the context of the sentence, is/are being treated as a group or as individuals.


 ... is the key.

A group of us are going to Hungary in August.

As a rough illustration, I searched for two phrases in Google:
about *66,300* for *"a group of people is"*
about *102,000* for *"a group of people are"*

If I restrict to UK sites:
about *466* for *"a group of people is"*
about *10,900* for *"a group of people are"*

This suggests that BE has a much stronger preference for a plural verb with a group of people than the world as a whole.


----------



## deslenguada

I've found that there are some words that in AE are treated as singulars, whil(st) in BE, are plurals like "team" or "group", as in football (soccer)teams, actually I can't think of more examples I know they will come out, thanks to you all  I would like you to give your opinion about it (and some instances we could speak of)


----------



## JamesM

I believe I have also seen "company" and "corporation" treated as plural, as well as any company name - "Texaco are stopping production of..." in BE.   In AE, they are singular.

I don't know if it's true or not, but I've gotten the impression over the years that any word that refers to a collection of _people_ is treated as plural. I'm interested to see what BE speakers can do to enlighten us on the matter. I've always been curious just how far this extends.


----------



## swyves

A British friend of mine found it a big change when he started writing for the New York Times and was told that house style was "The audience got to its feet, clapping vigorously".


----------



## Tresley

In British English I would say that group nouns (e.g. family) in general do tend to be treated as plurals.

For example: 'My family *are* coming for tea tomorrow'.  

Although, 'my family *is* coming for tea tomorrow' doesn't sound too strange to me either.


----------



## river

Dalian said:
			
		

> Hello people,
> 
> If I make a sentence starting with "a group of people...", should the predicate agree with "group" or "people"? Like:
> 
> A group of people is playing soccer.
> or
> A group of people are playing soccer.
> 
> So which one is grammatically correct?
> Thank you for your help.
> 
> Regards
> Dalian


 
*Your* meaning is more important than the grammar. If by group you mean "some," use the plural verb. Try the sentence with "kids" or "girls":_ A group of girls are playing soccer_ sounds more natural to me. Change "soccer" to "swimming":_A group of kids are swimming in the pool_ sounds much better than "is."  What's right is what sounds right.


----------



## JamesM

But I think it's a clear difference between AE and BE that in AE we would not say:

"Intel are launching a new chip today..."

We would say:

"Intel is launching a new chip today..."

For better or worse, we treat a company as a single entity, not a group of people.


----------



## Giordano Bruno

No! It's not a difference between BE and AE.  
The football/baseball team were exited.  (A team can't get exited)
The football/baseball team was victorious.  (Only a team can win)

So "A crowd of people were playing..." (A crowd cannot play, only people can do that)


----------



## deslenguada

Giordano Bruno said:
			
		

> No! It's not a difference between BE and AE.
> The football/baseball team were exited. (A team can't get exited)
> The football/baseball team was victorious. (Only a team can win)


 
I have heard and read "manchester united, arsenal or whatever team have won the cup (or something)" not has, treating football teams as plurals.

"Pakistan *have won* the toss" for example.


----------



## river

_The Wall Street Journal_'s stylebook entry on collective nouns advises that with words such as _variety, number and __total_, [and group] a rule of thumb is to use a singular verb when the article _the_ precedes the noun and a plural verb when the article _a_ is used.


----------



## Giordano Bruno

deslenguada said:
			
		

> I have heard and read "manchester united, arsenal or whatever team have won the cup (or something)" not has, treating football teams as plurals.
> 
> "Pakistan *have won* the toss" for example.


 
Buonas diaz, Deslenguada,

There can always be situations where there is the possiblilty of both interpretations.  It surely depends upon whether you are thinking that all of the team members have won the toss or whether the team has won the toss.  Your quote sounds a little odd to my ears, but I will allow for other opinions here.


----------



## deslenguada

Giordano Bruno said:


> Buonas diaz, Deslenguada,
> 
> There can always be situations where there is the possiblilty of both interpretations. It surely depends upon whether you are thinking that all of the team members have won the toss or whether the team has won the toss. Your quote sounds a little odd to my ears, but I will allow for other opinions here.


 
Hello  I took it from a British newspaper (I don't remember already...sorry it was long time ago) but I'm sure you can exchange the sport and it will work the same way


----------



## AngelEyes

sjofre said:


> I think the question is that "group" is the subject of the phrase, not people. And group is a singular word. If it was "groups of people", it would be "groups (subject) of people are playing soccer" but it is only ONE group so it is "a group of people IS playing soccer".
> 
> That's what I think... but I'm not an english native speaker.


 
I agree with Sjofre in this instance. That collective noun (group) is singular and it's the subject of the sentence. If you were to diagram it, "group" would take a singular verb because it's a single entity in this case.

In AE, that's the way I would interpret this particular example.



AngelEyes


----------



## panjandrum

The discussion of there is/ there's and whether or not it must be followed by a singular noun is separate from a discussion on whether the noun in question is singular or plural.
It has therefore been moved to its own thread.
There is / there's - with plural


----------



## PY2YP

Hello,

May I ask which one of the two phrases below is correct?

1) The group of Brazilian amateurs who signs this e-mail...
2) The group of Brazilian amateurs who sign this e-mail is...

I'm a bit confused with.

Thanks in advance.

Cesar


----------



## Matching Mole

It's sign because the "amateurs" is plural. He signs, they sign.

In this sentence it should probably be past tense, however, they signed.


----------



## french4beth

I disagree - I would say #1, because _'group'_ is a singular noun (even though it refers to more than 1 person, it's a collective noun like _water_ or _money_). 

"_The group who *signs *this email_..." would be correct. Just remove the prepositional phrase (_of amateurs_) because the sentence does not require this phrase - you just need subject+verb+object.

For example, you would say "_The group *goes *to school at 8:00am every day_" or "_The group *practices* soccer twice a week_" (not "The group go to school" or "The group practice twice a week").


----------



## Matching Mole

I know what you are saying, and I have no argument when group is used alone, but when "group" is extended with it's plural members it sounds wrong to treat it as singular in this construction.

I guess I have to concede that you are right, though. However, I would prefer, myself, to break the grammatical rule here, rather than sound awkward. Still, I think its academic, because the sentence construction is awkward to begin with, and would be unlikely to be used by a native speaker.


----------



## panjandrum

This is another of those AE/BE group is singular/either questions.
In this context, BE-speakers will happily consider "the group" as plural.  In fact, because the group must have signed individually (though I'm tempted by the idea of them all holding the pen together at the same time) the verb would have to be plural in BE.
See earlier posts on this now-merged thread.


----------



## Song Sprite

Panj, in that case, PY2YP would need to change that last word in his example, right?

2) The group of Brazilian amateurs who sign this e-mail *is => are*...


----------



## Orange Blossom

PY2YP said:


> May I ask which one of the two phrases below is correct?
> 
> 1) The group of Brazilian amateurs who signs this e-mail...
> 2) The group of Brazilian amateurs who sign this e-mail is...



Let's look at this some more.  I say the 2nd sentence is correct.  Here is my reasoning:

2) The group of Brazilian amateurs who sign this e-mail is...

who sign this e-mail <-- This is a subordinate clause. _Who_ is the subject of _sign_.  _Who_ in turn is modifying _amateurs_, not _group_.

Leaving out the subordinate clause, we have: The group of Brazilian amateurs is . . . 

_Group_ is the simple subject, and _is_ is the main verb of the sentence.

Orange Blossom


----------



## Song Sprite

> 2) The group of Brazilian amateurs who sign this e-mail is...
> 
> who sign this e-mail <-- This is a subordinate clause. _Who_ is the subject of _sign_. _Who_ in turn is modifying _amateurs_, not _group_.


 
Are you sure? I would have thought that 'who' would refer to all of 'the group of Braziliam amateurs'.



> Leaving out the subordinate clause, we have: The group of Brazilian amateurs is . . .
> 
> _Group_ is the simple subject, and _is_ is the main verb of the sentence.


 
That depends if 'group' is singular or plural. Panj (above) said that in BE it could be plural.


----------



## panjandrum

Song Sprite said:


> [...]
> That depends if 'group' is singular or plural. Panj (above) said that in BE it could be plural.


Correct from the BE perspective.
But I would need to see the rest of the sentence before deciding finally.

I don't mean that to sound pompous - I mean that any BE-speaker would decide the forms of the verbs in this sentence depending on the full context, and we don't have that.


----------



## french4beth

But what about collective nouns? You wouldn't say "The rain are falling", rather, "The rain is falling @ 1 inch/2.56 cm per hour" even though there are million raindrops involved.

Sorry to be such a pain, but I _think_ I'm right (even though it sounds awkward when saying the above sentence).


----------



## Song Sprite

> But what about collective nouns? You wouldn't say "The rain are falling", rather, "The rain is falling @ 1 inch/2.56 cm per hour" even though there are million raindrops involved.
> 
> Sorry to be such a pain, but I _think_ I'm right (even though it sounds awkward when saying the above sentence).


 
I do know what you're saying, but collective nouns have to be decided on a case-by-case basis: it depends on the word. Even though most of the time in my experience the collective does end up being singular, there are definitely exceptions to the rule.


----------



## Loob

Song Sprite said:


> Panj, in that case, PY2YP would need to change that last word in his example, right?
> 
> 2) The group of Brazilian amateurs who sign this e-mail *is => are*...


 
I'd say "probably yes" in BrE.

Having started the sentence thinking of the group as a set of individuals, we'd probably carry on with that mindset: _the group are. _

But to know for sure we'd need more context;-)

Loob


----------



## Orange Blossom

Song Sprite said:


> Are you sure? I would have thought that 'who' would refer to all of 'the group of Braziliam amateurs'.



I am quite sure that _who _is referring directly to 'amateurs' not 'group' given the partial sentence we have.

Here is a similar sentence:

The group of oak trees which shed numerous acorns in the fall provides shelter for my house.

The group provides shelter; the oak trees shed numerous acorns.

The group could very well have been composed of elm trees which do not shed acorns, but the group would still provide shelter. 

Too bad we don't have the predicate beyond the "is" in the original sentence.

Orange Blossom


----------



## Song Sprite

Now this is interesting. From your example, I would say that if one said

The group of oak trees which shed numerous acorns in the fall provides shelter for my house.

Then, as you said, 'which' would be the trees. I would say this because of the plural conjugation of 'shed'.

But on the other hand, couldn't one say:

The group of oak trees, which sheds numerous acorns in the fall, provides shelter for my house.

And in that case wouldn't 'which' refer to the whole group?


----------



## gaer

panjandrum said:


> Correct from the BE perspective.
> But I would need to see the rest of the sentence before deciding finally.
> 
> I don't mean that to sound pompous - I mean that any BE-speaker would decide the forms of the verbs in this sentence depending on the full context, and we don't have that.


Panjy, I also think context is terribly important. By the way:

Results 1 - 10 of about 24,300 for "The group of people who are.
Results 1 - 10 of about 166,000 for "The group of people who is. 

(This is just a suggestion of usage and MAY be descriptive of region—AE vs. BE.)

"The Senate is the group of people who _*are*_ not elected, but are chosen by the prime minister."

Regardless of descriptive rules, I would use "are" here, twice. I think, in the end, it is another case in which "feel" is the most important factor. 

Gaer


----------



## MilesofJoyfulBaguettes

I think it depends on the word "who": "the amateurs who sign" is correct, but if you wanted to talk about a group of amateurs, it'd be: "the group of amateurs (which/that) signs." In other words, you'd only use "who" when you are talking about real people, and "(which/that)" when talking about a group as a whole, non-individual entity. I don't know if that contemplation helps at all...
-Baguette


----------



## Song Sprite

Hmm....

Yeah, I see what you mean.


----------



## panjandrum

I think I'm going to have to keep injecting the BE note here.
Orange Blossom's group of oak trees, which cover my house with leaves in the autumn, provide shelter for my house against the prevailing winds.

It is really important, based on all the previous conversations, to keep this discussion carefully balanced mid-Atlantic.  AE-speakers will come to their own views on what is correct, as will we BE-speakers.  Neither side of the Atlantic will persuade the other to change.

We can explain each other's usage and seek to understand.


----------



## gaer

panjandrum said:


> I think I'm going to have to keep injecting the BE note here.


And context! 

Gaer


----------



## Loob

MilesofJoyfulBaguettes said:


> I think it depends on the word "who": "the amateurs who sign" is correct, but if you wanted to talk about a group of amateurs, it'd be: "the group of amateurs (which/that) signs." In other words, you'd only use "who" when you are talking about real people, and "(which/that)" when talking about a group as a whole, non-individual entity. I don't know if that contemplation helps at all...
> -Baguette


 

Welcome to the forums, Baguette, and thank you for a thought-provoking post.

I think you're right that the relative pronoun for "group" would normally be _which _or_ that_ whereas for "amateurs" (ie people) it would be _who _or_ that._

So if PY2YP wanted the focus to be on "group" rather than "amateurs", he would be better advised to use _which _or_ that, _rather than_ who._

That said, we're still left with the tantalising transatlantic difference that in BrE collective nouns can be singular or plural, depending on whether you're focusing on the entity or individual members; whereas in AmE (as I understand it) collective nouns are always singular.

_Vive la différence!_

Loob


----------



## AWordLover

Hi Folks,



> That said, we're still left with the tantalising transatlantic difference that in BrE collective nouns can be singular or plural, depending on whether you're focusing on the entity or individual members; whereas in AmE (as I understand it) collective nouns are always singular.
> 
> _Vive la différence!_
> 
> Loob


 
I don't think that in AE collective nouns are *always* singular, as usual, it depends on intent. I guess we have learned that it is more common in BE for collective nouns to be considered plural.

I don't know why I decided to quibble,
AWordLover


----------



## gaer

AWordLover said:


> Hi Folks,
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that in AE collective nouns are *always* singular, as usual, it depends on intent. I guess we have learned that it is more common in BE for collective nouns to be considered plural.
> 
> I don't know why I decided to quibble,
> AWordLover


Did you see the example sentence I used?


> "The Senate is the group of people who _*are*_ not elected, but are chosen by the prime minister."


I just can't make myself use "is" there. I might reword the whole thing, to avoid the problem in writing, but I'm almost sure I might say that, with "are".

This reminds me a great deal of a previous discussion concerning "none" in which most of us seemed to agree we would use either singular or plural according to context.

Gaer


----------



## AWordLover

> Did you see the example sentence I used?
> 
> Quote:
> "The Senate is the group of people who _*are*_ not elected, but are chosen by the prime minister."
> I just can't make myself use "is" there. I might reword the whole thing, to avoid the problem in writing, but I'm almost sure I might say that, with "are".
> 
> This reminds me a great deal of a previous discussion concerning "none" in which most of us seemed to agree we would use either singular or plural according to context.
> 
> Gaer


 
Not many would use is in your sentence, we seem to be talking about the individuals chosen by the Prime Minister.


----------



## gaer

AWordLover said:


> Not many would use is in your sentence, we seem to be talking about the individuals chosen by the Prime Minister.


I agree, and I should make it clear that it is not my sentence but rather the first that came up in a search for the pattern we were discussing. 

These changes would not bother me:

"The Senate is the group of people _*which is*_ not elected but chosen by the prime minister."

When there are AE/BE splits, I am always very confused. As I have mentioned before, I learned to read BE first. My speaking habits are AE, but my writing habits are a mixture. 

Gaer


----------



## AngelEyes

gaer said:


> "The Senate is the group of people _*which is*_ not elected but chosen by the prime minister."
> Gaer


 

I'm sitting here twitching and itching to change the above to this:

*The Senate is that group of people who are not elected, but chosen by the Prime Minister. *

Maybe I'm wrong.  

Oh, but now I see that AWordLover has written something very close to this example. His only reinforces my first gut reaction.



*AngelEyes*


----------



## gaer

AngelEyes said:


> I'm sitting here twitching and itching to change the above to this:
> 
> *The Senate is that group of people who are not elected, but chosen by the Prime Minister. *
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong.
> 
> Oh, but now I see that AWordLover has written something very close to this example. His only reinforces my first gut reaction.


I think there is something much more important here. In addition to the AE/BE split, which in itself causes misunderstanding, there is also the matter of over-thinking a sentence.


> *The Senate is that group of people who are not elected, but chosen by the Prime Minister. *
> 
> What about this?
> 
> _"Members of the Senate are not elected[,] but [are] chosen by the Prime Minister."_
> 
> This would have to be in context, of course, but there are often ways to avoid such problems.
> 
> Gaer


----------



## Musical Chairs

Or you can say, "people are playing soccer." If I had to say, "group of people are playing" sounds more natural but what sounds natural isn't always right. I usually speak the way I think sounds better but write (like in essays) gramatically correctly.


----------



## AngelEyes

gaer said:


> _"Members of the Senate are not elected[,] but [are] chosen by the Prime Minister." _This would have to be in context, of course, but there are often ways to avoid such problems.
> 
> Gaer


 

Absolutely, Gaer...the genius is always in the re-write.  

I agree with you...simple and direct is the best. I think when you have to work hard to make sense out of a sentence, it's telling you there's an easier, better way.





*AngelEyes*


----------



## gaer

AngelEyes said:


> Absolutely, Gaer...the genius is always in the re-write.
> 
> I agree with you...simple and direct is the best. I think when you have to work hard to make sense out of a sentence, it's telling you there's an easier, better way.


I could not agree more! 

Gaer


----------



## Q-cumber

A group of wise people *continues* discussing the issues of plurality.


----------



## gaer

Musical Chairs said:


> Or you can say, "people are playing soccer." If I had to say, "group of people are playing" sounds more natural but what sounds natural isn't always right. I usually speak the way I think sounds better but write (like in essays) gramatically correctly.


Doesn't this mean something?

Results 1 - 10 of about 10,900 for "group of people are playing.
Results 1 - 10 of about 238 for "group of people is playing. 

To me this says that "group of people", in this particular phrase, is treated as "people in a group". 

Gaer


----------



## john_riemann_soong

Revision of declension. This happened with "a lot of people are".


----------



## gaer

john_riemann_soong said:


> Revision of declension. This happened with "a lot of people are".


Hmm… "revision of declension"…

That's a new term to me. But if it means that "a lot of people" is treated as on "thing", and plural, then I would say that it is so. 

Gaer


----------



## john_riemann_soong

My term, actually.  I don't know what the official term is. But it seems to happen all the time. 

Besides the concept of dropping declension or losing it significantly (like how Romance languages had a huge revision in declension, dropping the neuter gender entirely and assimilating it into the masculine, or both English and Romance halting the declination of most nouns), there are processes where one declension type gets reanalysed into another.


E.g. sometimes Romance made neuter nouns feminine, (gaudium => gaudia => jodie => joie) etc. Singular "a lot" was increasingly used to signify the plural of something and as such, was used in the plural. Yet, "there's" in "There's a lot of people" (revising a revised declension) or "there's so much to eat!" merges both singular and plural into one construction. Part of this is that "there're" is an ugly pronunication, while "there's" is an easy contraction and more convenient and distinguishable.

For gaudium itself, since it was used so often in the plural as gaudia (joys of life => *the* joy of life, etc.) it became thought of as a singular noun, one that was feminine due to the "-ia" ending. Similarly I wouldn't be surprised if singular "a lot" is used so much in the plural, it becomes assimilated as plural.


----------



## gaer

john_riemann_soong said:


> My term, actually.  I don't know what the official term is. But it seems to happen all the time.


But "a lot of + plural noun" = "many + plural noun".

It's really not the same thing. 

Gaer


----------



## Q-cumber

An example: "A large group of people is splitting into three smaller groups". Does this sentence suggest a variant with "are" at all?


----------



## john_riemann_soong

gaer said:


> But "a lot of + plural noun" = "many + plural noun".
> 
> It's really not the same thing.
> 
> Gaer



It used to be singular, but now is arguably all but plural.


----------



## panjandrum

Moderator Note:
Please do not complicate this already-complicated thread by introducing the changing meaning and grammatical treatment of "a lot of".  There is at least one other thread where this conversation would be more appropriate:
*There is a lot of, there are a lot of.  Is "a lot" singular or plural?*
panjandrum


----------



## gaer

john_riemann_soong said:


> It used to be singular, but now is arguably all but plural.


Do you have any examples that show "a lot of people is"?

It would be interesting to say such a big change in usage illustrated with sources.

I do know that just the opposite happened with "The United States". It was treated as plural orginally.

Gaer


----------



## dawpal

Identifying the subject of the sentence will help you.  Each word in a sentence has a purpose.  In your sentence, group is the subject of the sentence. People is the object of the preposition, of.  Since the subject of the sentence, group, is a collective noun where everyone is performing the same act, playing soccer,  the verb agrees with the singular collective noun and should be singular.

A pack of wolves howls at the moon. 

 Even though wolves is plural, it is not the subject of the sentence, but the object of a preposition.  The verb must agree with the subject of the sentence, pack.  Since the entire pack is howling together, pack is singular.  

Refer to Brian to help you decide if the collective noun is singular or plural.


----------



## grammargrunge

i read through the first two pages of this thread, and i think the consensus is a group IS a whole, not ARE. but, this still does not clarify for me. have a look at my question, if you would be so kind.

a group of the old men fight (or fights) in the lane.
we can say a group fight in the lane, OR a group fights. either sounds like it could be right. but, it seems like everyone is agreement that we should be focused on the GROUP as a whole. thus, the group of old men FIGHTS? we focus on the group, and not the old men?

a group of girls read (or reads) poetry aloud.
the group of girls read poetry aloud, OR the group READS poetry aloud... either way sounds right to me here. but from what the authorities are writing above, the GROUP READS, it doesn't matter if its a group of girls or dogs or birds. the focus us GROUP. right?

a crowd of dog walkers spend (or spends) their time untangling their leashes.
the crowd SPENDS their time as a whole? it seems to me that they can individually SPEND their time untangle their leashes. is the assumption that all of them are doing this untangling? thus, the crowd SPENDS?

my point is, which object does the verb tense correspond to? the GROUP reads/fights/spends (do we focus on this), or do the old men/girls/dog-walkers fight/read/spend? given that i have identified who the group is.

and if i remember correctly, in grade school (gulp) we reduce it to THEY (maybe i am too old to remember if i was taught this, or it was poor teaching, i don't know...):
THEY fight/read/spend. so, a group of girls (they) SPEND their time reading, we would not say a group of girls (they) SPENDS their time reading. or do we ignore the identification in the crowd/group (i.e., ignore that they are girls, old men and dog walkers and just focus on 'group')


----------



## PaulQ

You will probably be familiar with the "wave/particle theory" of light (if not, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality) So it is with groups/crowds/teams/classes/ of <noun> and singular nouns that indicate groups/crowds/teams/classes/ of <noun> e.g. staff, membership, government, army, etc. They can be viewed as either singular or plural at the same time. 

There are exceptions, e.g. "the police" is plural. For the most part though, this is a happy situation where it is hard to be wrong with subject-verb agreement.


----------



## JustKate

PaulQ said:


> You will probably be familiar with the "wave/particle theory" of light (if not, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality) So it is with groups/crowds/teams/classes/ of <noun> and singular nouns that indicate groups/crowds/teams/classes/ of <noun> e.g. staff, membership, government, army, etc. They can be viewed as either singular or plural at the same time.
> 
> There are exceptions, e.g. "the police" is plural. For the most part though, this is a happy situation where it is hard to be wrong with subject-verb agreement.



I agree. There are some cases where a particular example is definitely right or definitely wrong - Paul's police example is one. If you're taking a test, you have to please the teacher, and if you're writing something for publication, you have to please the editor.  But lots of times, it depends on how you, the writer, are looking at it. 

And that is certainly the case with your groups of old men, girls and dog-walkers. If the old men were involved in individual fights, I'd probably use _fight_ because I'd think of them as individuals. But if it were two two army squads made up of old men and they were involved in a group action, I'd probably use _fights_ because I'd think of them as a group.


----------



## tnfyguy81

grammargrunge said:


> i read through the first two pages of this thread, and i think the consensus is a group IS a whole, not ARE. but, this still does not clarify for me. have a look at my question, if you would be so kind.
> 
> a group of the old men fight (or fights) in the lane.
> we can say a group fight in the lane, OR a group fights. either sounds like it could be right. but, it seems like everyone is agreement that we should be focused on the GROUP as a whole. thus, the group of old men FIGHTS? we focus on the group, and not the old men?
> 
> a group of girls read (or reads) poetry aloud.
> the group of girls read poetry aloud, OR the group READS poetry aloud... either way sounds right to me here. but from what the authorities are writing above, the GROUP READS, it doesn't matter if its a group of girls or dogs or birds. the focus us GROUP. right?
> 
> a crowd of dog walkers spend (or spends) their time untangling their leashes.
> the crowd SPENDS their time as a whole? it seems to me that they can individually SPEND their time untangle their leashes. is the assumption that all of them are doing this untangling? thus, the crowd SPENDS?
> 
> my point is, which object does the verb tense correspond to? the GROUP reads/fights/spends (do we focus on this), or do the old men/girls/dog-walkers fight/read/spend? given that i have identified who the group is.
> 
> and if i remember correctly, in grade school (gulp) we reduce it to THEY (maybe i am too old to remember if i was taught this, or it was poor teaching, i don't know...):
> THEY fight/read/spend. so, a group of girls (they) SPEND their time reading, we would not say a group of girls (they) SPENDS their time reading. or do we ignore the identification in the crowd/group (i.e., ignore that they are girls, old men and dog walkers and just focus on 'group')



The easiest thing to do is remove the prepositional phrase and see which verb tense works, then add the prepositional phrase back in while keeping the verb tense the same.  For example:

A group of the old men fight (or fights) in the lane.

A group [fights] in the lane.
A group of the old men [fights] in the lane.

A group of girls read (or reads) poetry aloud.
A group [reads] poetry aloud.
A group of girls [reads] poetry aloud.

A crowd of dog walkers spend (or spends) their time untangling their leashes.
A crowd [spends] their time untangling their leashes.
A crowd of dog walkers [spends] their time untangling their leashes.


----------



## JamesM

Ah, if it were only that simple.   

If "crowd" is singular ("spends") the rest of the sentence should use "its", not "their".   How can "it" spend "their" time?  However, then you get this:

"A crowd of dog walkers spends its time untangling its leashes."  

That sounds very odd to me.  I would say "A crowd of dog walkers spend their time..."

So it isn't just the bare subject that determines the appropriateness.


----------



## dumbfounded

< Moderator's note: This new question has been added to an existing thread.  Please scroll up and read from the top. >

What about the group?
Group of Castu (A tribe) was/were moving to Amblona.(A place)


----------



## Cagey

*Reply to most recent post:* 


dumbfounded said:


> What about the group?
> Group of Castu (A tribe) was/were moving to Amblona.(A place)


If you read the above thread, you will see that the answer depends on whether you are thinking of the group as acting as a single unit, or as a collection of individuals. 

In this case, my first inclination is to think of the Castu who are moving as a collection of individuals and families, so I would use _were_.  

More context might change my mind.  For instance, if a decision had been made as group that one group of Castu would move to Ambola while the rest would go to another place, I might think of the group as a unit, and use the singular form, was.  

*Note*: I am not familiar with the Castu and the Internet hasn't helped me. Am I correct in assuming that Castu is the plural form?


----------



## sitifan

According to _Ho's Complete English Grammar _(Book 1, p45), *a couple/group of + plural noun + plural verb.*
A group of us have decided to hire a station wagon and travel around Taiwan.


----------



## Wordy McWordface

sitifan said:


> According to _Ho's Complete English Grammar _(Book 1, p45), *a couple/group of + plural noun + plural verb.*
> A group of us have decided to hire a station wagon and travel around Taiwan.


Is this book telling students that we have to use a plural verb with these collective noun constructions? If that's what Mr/Ms Ho is saying, they are wrong. You certainly can use a plural verb. The sentence quoted is fine and it would probably be the preferred option, particularly in British English.
But that does not mean that you have to use a plural verb in all cases. In contexts where the group is seen as a single entity, we often use a singular verb, e.g., _The group of tourists was arrested_. This tends to be the preferred option in American English.


----------



## Ferry

tnfyguy81 said:


> The easiest thing to do is remove the prepositional phrase and see which verb tense works, then add the prepositional phrase back in while keeping the verb tense the same.  For example:
> 
> A group of the old men fight (or fights) in the lane.
> 
> A group [fights] in the lane.
> A group of the old men [fights] in the lane.
> 
> A group of girls read (or reads) poetry aloud.
> A group [reads] poetry aloud.
> A group of girls [reads] poetry aloud.
> 
> A crowd of dog walkers spend (or spends) their time untangling their leashes.
> A crowd [spends] their time untangling their leashes.
> A crowd of dog walkers [spends] their time untangling their leashes.



I completely agree. I'd say the important part is "group", the subject, the one the sentence is referring to. Take out the equation what forms the "group", be it people, girls, whatever, and say the phrase again:

_A group is…

Some groups are…_

Wikipedia: Agreement (number)

Saluditos,

Ferrán.


----------

