# Collective Nouns in English



## Saoul

I have just read in this post, that names as United States need a singular verb. 

United States does a lot of trade.

I am puzzled, since I've always thought that collective nouns are plural.

People are meant to live honestly.
My family are always fighting among themselves.
The governement have decided to...
The team have played a great match.

Are these sentences wrong? What am I losing? (Please, don't answer "your mind, Saoul, your mind!")

Thanks for your help.


----------



## TimLA

People are meant to live honestly. 
My family are always fighting among themselves. 
The governement have decided to... 
The team have played a great match. 

Are these sentences wrong? What am I losing? (Please, don't answer "your mind, Saoul, your mind!")

My family is...
The government has...
The team has...

It's not your mind Saoul, remember it was replaced last week? 

Tim


----------



## Saoul

Me and my brand new skull kindly disagree... (obviously just by a grammar point of view, your being Native, does not allow me to disagree actually!). 

If what you say is always true, why do they write this and this.

Isn't it one of the BE and AE differences?


----------



## TimLA

Saoul said:
			
		

> Me and my brand new skull kindly disagree... (obviously just by a grammar point of view, your being Native, does not allow me to disagree actually!).
> 
> If what you say is always true, why do they write this and this.
> 
> Isn't it one of the BE and AE differences?


 
You got it...
Here's a sentence from the first one:
In British usage, collective nouns are more often treated as plurals: _The government have not announced a new policy. The team are playing in the test matches next week._

_and from the second:_
In British English, collective nouns can be treated as either singular or plural depending on the context. For example, "the team is in the dressing room" refers to _the team_ as an ensemble, whilst "the team are fighting amongst themselves" refers to _the team_ as individuals.

But even in the BE writing and TV I see today, I don't find it that common.

Tim


----------



## Elisa68

Saoul, c'è stata una bella discussione proprio sul tema degli Stati Uniti singolare/plurale su English Only.


----------



## Saoul

I studied English grammar some 25 years ago, so... a bit of retro-vibe in me, can be easily sensed.

But anyway, Tim, granpa Saoul would like to understand if you got my sentence as mistakes, or not. 
Would I be, again, awkward, should I say "The government decide the wrong thing!"?

EDIT: Grazie Elisa, mi hai dato da leggere per i prossimi due giorni. Vedo che non è un problema che sento solo io, dunque! Questo è confortante.


----------



## Elisa68

Saoul said:
			
		

> EDIT: Grazie Elisa, mi hai dato da leggere per i prossimi due giorni. Vedo che non è un problema che sento solo io, dunque! Questo è confortante.


(E che te la volevi cavare con un riassuntino? )
Assolutamente! È una questione molto dibattuta anche tra nativi.


----------



## TimLA

Saoul said:
			
		

> I studied English grammar some 25 years ago, so... a bit of retro-vibe in me, can be easily sensed.
> 
> But anyway, Tim, granpa Saoul would like to understand if you got my sentence as mistakes, or not.
> Would I be, again, awkward, should I say "The government decide the wrong thing!"?
> 
> EDIT: Grazie Elisa, mi hai dato da leggere per i prossimi due giorni. Vedo che non è un problema che sento solo io, dunque! Questo è confortante.


 
Nonno,
I cannot speak for BE, but in AE - "The government decide the..." is, sorry, just sbagliato.

Tim


----------



## moodywop

marziotta said:
			
		

> Is there a rule, or whatelse, to find what is singular, what is plural, why and when?


 
My advice is to look up the word in the Longman Web Dictionary. It tells you whether the "collective noun" can be followed by a plural verb in British English. For instance:

_*family*[also + plural verb British English] _
_The family now *live* in London._

_*government *[also + plural verb British English] the group of people who govern a country or state: __The Government *are *planning further cuts in public spending_

Altre parole singolari spesso seguite da un verbo al plurale in BE: _committee, team, board, council, audience, jury, staff, majority, class._

In BE si usa il plurale anche dopo i nomi delle squadre:

_Arsenal *have* won again_

_England *have *been here almost a week, practising every day (BBC)_

A volte si trova il verbo al plurale anche dopo _the US/the United States, _se è sottinteso _government:_

_The United States *have* not ratified the Extradition Treaty signed by the United Kingdom (House of Lords debate)_


----------



## se16teddy

'People' always takes a plural verb (except arguably when it means 'nation'). 

'United States', though plural in form, usually takes a singular verb. 

In British English, singular nouns such as police, government, family, crew, team, Manchester United, band, herd, flock and congregation, which are singular in form but can be understood as referring to a group of people or animals, often take a plural verb to signal that the group consists of independent minds; but American English tends to disapprove this practice. 

These subject are discussed at length at 
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=33028&page=2 
and 
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=40717&highlight=singular+plural+family+british


----------



## lsp

The United States, to those who live here (I can't vouch for BE) is plural or singular depending on what we're stressing.
The United States are mostly English speaking.
The United States is at war with Iraq.

Other collective nouns, as has been explained, are usually singular in AE. EX: My family eats dinner earlier than yours. _People_ is an exception and is always plural. EX: People stand in line for hours to get certain concert tickets.


EDIT: Moodywop's example (The United States _have_ not ratified the Extradition Treaty signed by the United Kingdom) sounds wrong to me. I'd say _has_.


----------



## moodywop

lsp said:
			
		

> EDIT: Moodywop's example (The United States _have_ not ratified the Extradition Treaty signed by the United Kingdom) sounds wrong to me. I'd say _has_.


 
This is probably one of the few cases where an American ESL teacher would correct something in a learner's homework that a British teacher would find perfectly correct. Some more examples: I've often seen British teachers mark as wrong _on the weekend (at the weekend _in BE) and _Have you got a cat? Yes I do _(_Yes I have_ in BE_)._


----------



## jwoolley

Saoul said:
			
		

> United States does a lot of trade.
> People are meant to live honestly.
> My family are always fighting among themselves.
> The governement have decided to...
> The team have played a great match.



I am British and reading your examples and those suggested by others, I find myself wanting to find a different way of expressing the phrase because there seems to be no proper grammatical way doing it with a collective noun... This is really hard to explain!

For example, "My family is always fighting among..." should gramatically now be followed by "itself" but that definitely sounds wrong, so I would have to say "themselves" but am aware that there is a grammatical 'clash' there. "My family is always fighting" gets away from that problem.

With the case of the government, both plural and singular are used here. The government have decided", rather than "The government's decided...", tends to have a greater sense of a large group of people deciding rather than just one entity.

Sorry, not sure how much sense I have made but hope it is of some help!


----------



## 3llawee

Salve a tutti,
When referring to a group of males and females, do we refer to them with masculine plural? For example:
They are rich (they refers to an organization with male and female members)

translates to:

Egli sono ricchi?

How about "they are a rich organization" ? Would it translate to:
Essi sono un'organizzazione ricca

Grazie


----------



## Alxmrphi

Well,

You're correct in your first assumption, it is the masculine plural, but you should use "*loro*" and not "*egli"*.

With '*organizzazione*', it is singular so you can't say '*sono*', even in English it's preferable to make the number (grammatical) match (*it's a *rich organisation)

So, "*e' un'organizzazione ricca*"


----------



## Odysseus54

Let me be the Devil's advocate here.  Imagine this sentence :

" Ieri sera sono andato a cena con dei massoni.  Sono un'organizzazione molto ricca."


How does it sound ?


----------



## Skin

3llawee said:


> Salve a tutti,
> When referring to a group of males and females, do we refer to them with masculine plural? For example:
> They are rich (they refers to an organization with male and female members)
> 
> translates to:
> 
> Egli Essi/Loro sono ricchi? Regola generale: l'aggettivo concorda in genere e numero con il sostantivo a cui si riferisce. In questo caso: maschile + femminile= maschile. Esempio: Paul e Mary sono ricchi
> 
> How about "they are a rich organization" ? Would it translate to:
> Essi sono un'organizzazione ricca
> 
> Grazie


 
"Essi sono un'organizzazione ricca" è una frase un po' anomala, ma non sbagliata. Meglio sarebbe dire: "Sono membri di/appartengono a un'organizzazione ricca" 
Detto questo, non è necessario che soggetto e nome del predicato siano uguali nel numero (cioè entrambi singolari o entrambi plurali) e il verbo si accorda col soggetto, non con il complemento. Non vedrei niente di strano nella frase seguente, molto simile alla tua: _"I Coldplay sono un gruppo molto affiatato"_. Affiatato è maschile e singolare perchè si riferisce a gruppo e non ha nessuna importanza che il soggetto (i Coldplay) sia plurale.

Spero di essere stato chiaro (e che tu non abbia difficoltà a capire l'italiano!)


----------



## Alxmrphi

You wrote it in Italian, and you are Italian, can't you tell us??? 
There are ways to use the plural in English and it'd sound ok, I didn't think this was the case with Italian, but if your sentenced seems normal to you, it's probably the same thing that happens in the English, ok but not necessarily preferable?

Is that how it seems to you?



> Sono membri di/appartengono a un'organizzazione ricca



Ho appena visto il tuo post Skin, ma la stessa cosa mi e' anche venuta in mente, ma non l'ho suggerito, sono lieto che tu ci hai anche pensato!


----------



## Odysseus54

Alex, Skin's explanation of the reason why you can have 

" I massoni sono un'organizzazione molto ricca" 

is the correct one.

Would'n it be the same in English ?  

" Oxford alumni are a very tight community "  

Subject and copula are plural, and the predicate nominal can be singular.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> Subject and copula are plural, and the predicate nominal can be singular.


I would slightly change this to:

Subject and copula *can be* plural (as well as singular), and the predicate nominal* is *singular.
Which would mean:

The Oxford alumni are a very tight community.
The Oxford alumni is a very tight community.

.. are both acceptable, which is my personal opinion, when referencing a group of people that can also come under the name of a singular noun, the copula can be both singular and plural (i.e. *are / is* [_above_]) but the predicate nominal is singular, unless you are referencing something in the plural, but in our examples we're only talking about one thing.

Do you agree with my edit to your assumption?

I think I'm beginning to babble and talk nonsense now, I apologise.
I think we're all just basically saying when something is collectively known as something, when the name of the grouping comes in, in Italian it blocks the need for the plural and the adjectives that follow reference the number of the grouping that the plural subjects come under, which makes perfect sense in English, and it's easy to use both a singular and plural linking verb..

[Edit]
Actually I haven't checked out if that also works in Italian:
*Gli alumni è un'organizzazione ricca*
I would imagine this is considered wrong and in Italian you can only use 'sono', right? Or does it work like the English and accept the singular form as well?


----------



## Odysseus54

Alxmrphi said:


> I would slightly change this to:
> 
> Subject and copula *can be* plural (as well as singular), and the predicate nominal* is *singular.
> Which would mean:
> 
> The Oxford alumni are a very tight community.
> The Oxford alumni is a very tight community.
> 
> .. are both acceptable, which is my personal opinion, when referencing a group of people that can also come under the name of a singular noun, the copula can be both singular and plural (i.e. *are / is* [_above_]) but the predicate nominal is singular, unless you are referencing something in the plural, but in our examples we're only talking about one thing.
> 
> Do you agree with my edit to your assumption?
> 
> I think I'm beginning to babble and talk nonsense now, I apologise.
> I think we're all just basically saying when something is collectively known as something, when the name of the grouping comes in, in Italian it blocks the need for the plural and the adjectives that follow reference the number of the grouping that the plural subjects come under, which makes perfect sense in English, and it's easy to use both a singular and plural linking verb..
> 
> [Edit]
> Actually I haven't checked out if that also works in Italian:
> *Gli alumni è un'organizzazione ricca*
> I would imagine this is considered wrong and in Italian you can only use 'sono', right? Or does it work like the English and accept the singular form as well?



You got it - in Italian the linking verb has to agree with the subject, not with the predicate nominal.

If in English it can agree with either one, we have a difference of which I was not aware.


----------



## Alxmrphi

As far as I am aware (_I have read the sentences too many times to understand if it's good or bad English now_) in cases like this where there *are *members that can belong to *a* group, it's possible for the copula to link either with the number of the subject (plural) or the number of the predicate nominal (singular)..

But I will go and check that out to see if it is considered _*proper*_.


[Edit]:

Actually, I think it depends on how we can view it, in English "the Oxford Alumni", if you think of it as an organisation (singular) it's fine to use a copula / linking verb in the singular. In Italian you would automatically think of the members and make it plural, and could only have it in a singular form if you said "*L'associazione degli alumni è...*" wheras I think in English, since the article '*the*' doesn't reflect a singular / plural number, it can be left up to the speaker to view it as *a singular organization*, or _*many*_* people*, which would then affect their natural choice of the verb '*to be*' in this case.

I think that might be the best explanation I can come up with.


----------



## brian

Odysseus54 said:


> Subject and copula are plural, and the predicate nominal can be singular.



I agree with this, provided you mean "subject and copula are plural _even when_ the predicate nominal is singular", which I believe is basically what you are saying.

_The Oxford alumni_ (plural) _are_ (plural) _a tight community_ (singular).



Alxmrphi said:


> The Oxford alumni are a very tight community.
> The Oxford alumni is a very tight community.



Alex, maybe it's the word "alumni" that is tripping your brain up a bit. It's not as clearly plural as, say, a normal plural noun ending in _-s_. Try something simpler:

_Worms *are* an integral part of Earth's ecosystem._

Please don't tell me you could say _is_ here.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> Alex, maybe it's the word "alumni" that is tripping your brain up a bit. It's not as clearly plural as, say, a normal plural noun ending in _-s_. Try something simpler:
> _Worms *are* an integral part of Earth's ecosystem._
> Please don't tell me you could say _is_ here.


No no, of course not, my point was:



> in cases like this where there *are *members that can belong to *a* group, it's possible for the copula to link either with the number of the subject (plural) or the number of the predicate nominal (singular)..


Basically, using an obvious plural like you did with worms is a different thing as to what I was talking about, I meant a word that in a way could be viewed as either single or plural depending on whether you see it as a single or plural entity...

Another one that comes to mind is:

*The government is*.. _Find out more about swine flu, how you can protect yourself, and what the government is doing_ (direct.gov.uk)
*The government are*.._The Government are  aware of the concerns expressed in reaction_ (number10.gov.uk)

*The NHS is*.. i.e. _It now claims the NHS is 97 per cent compliant with the new regulation_ (politics.co.uk)
*The NHS are*.. _Although the NHS are trying very hard to reduce these times_

*The teachers union is*.._The teachers' union is_ to stage a 24-hour walkout on Thursday (BBC)
 *The teachers union are*.. _supplying a legal team. (BBC)

_I am aware there is probably something written in every grammar of English that dictates one way or the other, but as it's such a common thing to do in the normal world, that's why I am giving my view on why, contrary to grammatical rules, the mind might choose to switch verbs._
_


----------



## Odysseus54

brian said:


> I agree with this, provided you mean "subject and copula are plural _even when_ the predicate nominal is singular", which I believe is basically what you are saying.
> 
> _The Oxford alumni_ (plural) _are_ (plural) _a tight community_ (singular).




That's right.  

If the subject is plural and the predicate nominal is singular, the copula is always plural.

Or, in more general terms, the copula always agrees with the subject.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> Or, in more general terms, the copula always agrees with the subject.


 
I do agree with this, my point was in English, things can be viewed as singular and plural depending on how the speaker talks about it, for example if talking about "China", if you say it and mean the people, you'd use "who" are a relative pronoun, but if you meant the country, you'd use "which", this is a distinction made in the mind about how one views the subject.

My point was that in English, it very often happens that the number can be judged as either singular or plural (as there is nothing that overtly _states_ the number in English, unlike Italian), as demonstrated by my examples above.


----------



## brian

Ah, I see what you mean now, Alex. Those are called "collective nouns," and incidentally I just found something very interesting. Click.



> In British English, it is generally accepted that collective nouns can take either singular or plural verb forms depending on the context and the metonymic shift that it implies. For example, "the team is in the dressing room" (_formal agreement_) refers to _the team_ as an ensemble, whilst "the team are fighting among themselves" (_notional agreement_) refers to _the team_ as individuals. [...] In American English, collective nouns usually take singular verb forms (formal agreement), but either a singular or plural verb is correct American usage where the noun is understood as a group of individual components.



So that must explain why we feel differently about subject-copula agreement.


----------



## vale_ca

brian said:


> In British English, it is generally accepted that collective nouns can take either singular or plural verb forms depending on the context and the metonymic shift that it implies. For example, "the team is in the dressing room" (_formal agreement_) refers to _the team_ as an ensemble, whilst "the team are fighting among themselves" (_notional agreement_) refers to _the team_ as individuals. [...]


 
Ma anche in italiano esiste qualcosa del genere... la _concordatio ad sensum._

Il 10% degli italiani e' al di sotto della soglia di povertà (corretta)
Il 10% degli italiani sono al di sotto della soglia di povertà (_concordatio ad sensum_)

O sbaglio e non è la stessa cosa?


----------



## Odysseus54

vale_ca said:


> Ma anche in italiano esiste qualcosa del genere... la _concordatio ad sensum._
> 
> Il 10% degli italiani e' al di sotto della soglia di povertà (corretta)
> Il 10% degli italiani sono al di sotto della soglia di povertà (_concordatio ad sensum_)
> 
> O sbaglio e non è la stessa cosa?




Non e' la stessa cosa.  

Loro stanno parlando dell'uso dei "nouns of multitude" - tipo appunto 'il governo' , 'il sindacato' , 'il battaglione' , 'la classe'.

Non riesco a pensare ad un esempio in cui un nome collettivo in italiano prenda il verbo al plurale.

A te viene in mente qualche esempio ?


----------



## brian

Here is a good example. A teacher, Ms. Smith, is sick and so her class decides to cheer her up with get-well-cards:

_The class *is* making a get-well-card for Ms. Smith._ <-- one card, from the entire class
_The class *are* making get-well-cards for Ms. Smith._ <-- multiple cards, one (or more) from each student

I'll admit that the latter sentence, with "are", is nowadays seldom used - most people would say "The class *is* making get-well-card*s*", where the plural "card*s*" clearly shows that more than one card is being made - but "the class *are*" is, grammatically speaking, perfectly fine.

Another example:

_The jury *has* not yet reached a verdict._ <-- singular because the jury represents one cohesive, decision-making body
_The jury *have* been discussing the case for one week._ <-- plural, because the jury is composed multiple people who discuss


----------



## vale_ca

Odysseus54 said:


> Non e' la stessa cosa.
> 
> Loro stanno parlando dell'uso dei "nouns of multitude" - tipo appunto 'il governo' , 'il sindacato' , 'il battaglione' , 'la classe'.
> 
> Non riesco a pensare ad un esempio in cui un nome collettivo in italiano prenda il verbo al plurale.
> 
> A te viene in mente qualche esempio ?


 

Ho capito.

Effettivamente ho visto scritto (e sentito dire): "la gente hanno detto, hanno fatto", ma credo che in italiano sia proprio sbagliato.

Perciò la concordatio ad sensum in italiano si usa solo se c'e' sia un termine singolare sia uno plurale a cui il verbo potrebbe riferirsi (per es: c'e' un milione di persone o ci sono un milione di persone)


----------



## Odysseus54

brian said:


> Here is a good example. A teacher, Ms. Smith, is sick and so her class decides to cheer her up with get-well-cards:
> 
> _The class *is* making a get-well-card for Ms. Smith._ <-- one card, from the entire class
> _The class *are* making get-well-cards for Ms. Smith._ <-- multiple cards, one (or more) from each student



This is a good example, and I think there is some of that in AE as well, but not to the extent of Alex's BE examples above.

In Italian we would not say "La classe stanno preparando delle cartoline".  

If we had to emphasize that it is not a collective effort, we would say "Gli studenti stanno preparando delle cartoline."


"Il governo sta preparando un decreto per vietare gli sternuti in pubblico nelle citta' d'arte ..."

ma

"I ministri si sono trovati per la cerimonia della consegna del mandolino d'oro ... "


----------



## Alxmrphi

Even when a collective noun represents unity (like in brian's jury example) it's often to hear both a singular and plural copula, I did a bit of searching on the net and found an explanation in the book "*A survey of modern English*" which has a brief paragraph on Concord:



> The one important divergence has to do with the greater degree to which _notional concord_ is applied in BE. While both types of English construe words like _people_ and _police_ as plurals, a large number of collective nouns used for people are often seen as plural in BrE while *they virtually never are* in AmE, e.g government / team / commitee / council / board etc. Hence, BrE frequently has _The council have decided to make further enquries_ [Alx's note: this represents unity and is plural], where AmE (but BrE as well) _The council has decided_.


After reading this I am happy with my original statement (but now restricted to BE usage) that the copula can be plural / singular (irregardless of its usage as a unified body or as plural members, though this does certainly play a part in the choice depending on the circumstances, I am just pointing out it's not _limited to_ this..)

Thank you brian for highlighting the contrast between AmE and BrE! 
This is actually a difference I find quite interesting (were you aware of it?)


----------



## brian

Alxmrphi said:
			
		

> This is actually a difference I find quite interesting (were you aware of it?)



Nope. I had no idea.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Ody, this was brought up on page 1, but I can't see an answer to it:

_Un milione di persone _*cerca(no)* _lavoro_

What is correct? (or is it optional for both)
I think I need to re-read everything that was written about the Italian because it's confused me a tad.
You have previously said "has to agree with the subject", so I am guessing the correct Italian is the 3rd person singular *cerca*? But in the spoken language it can be either?


----------



## brian

I would say _un milione di persone che *cercano*_. Don't ask me why.


----------



## vale_ca

You can say both: 

un milione di persone cerca lavoro (referring to un milione - and is correct), as the subject is _un milione,_ singular 

un milione di persone cercano lavoro (referring to persone - and is also considered correct), referring to _persone_, plural. This is called (from Latin) _concordatio ad sensum_ and is meant that the actual subject, notwithstanding the grammatical rule, is persone and not milione.


----------



## brian

Which one would you say is more common?


----------



## miri

Here is an interesting thread about "concordanza a senso"


----------



## vale_ca

brian said:


> Which one would you say is more common?


 
Honestly, I would say both are used indifferently. There is no preponderance


Any other opinion from Italian speaking people?


Edit: Miri, yes, very interesting thread. But I still think both are used indifferently. Especially in spoken language.


----------



## Odysseus54

Alxmrphi said:


> Ody, this was brought up on page 1, but I can't see an answer to it:
> 
> _Un milione di persone _*cerca(no)* _lavoro_
> 
> What is correct? (or is it optional for both)
> I think I need to re-read everything that was written about the Italian because it's confused me a tad.
> You have previously said "has to agree with the subject", so I am guessing the correct Italian is the 3rd person singular *cerca*? But in the spoken language it can be either?



I think here it's different - "Un milione di persone" is not a noun of multitude.

You have the numeral which comes in the singular form, and the noun which comes in the plural.  Here you would use the 'concordanza a senso', and choosing one or the other option could be suggested by  context, I guess .

"Oggi un centinaio di persone ha partecipato alla manifestazione"

ma

"Appena e' scoppiato il primo lacrimogeno, un centinaio di persone si sono messe a correre"


That's the way I would write it.  Actually, I have seen examples in the thread that Miri is linking to, which don't sound right to me, regardless of who wrote those sentences.  Perhaps they wanted to introduce an informal, demotic tone into the style ?


----------



## paolo mercaldo

Devo tradurre la frase "SIT (nome di una società) sviluppa e produce controlli....."
Il nome di una società va considerato come nome collettivo e quindi va usata la terza persona plurale del verbo (develop) oppure è una terza persona singolare (develops)?


----------



## King Crimson

Dipende... da quel che ho visto in BE normalmente le società sono considerate entità collettive e quindi il verbo prende la terza persona plurale, mentre l'AE è più simile all'italiano e quindi prende la terza singolare.

P.S. sarò subito smentito da qualche native...


----------



## mjfloresta

"company" come tutti gli altri nomi collettivi (in inglese almeno) richiede la forma singolare, cioe' "develops".


----------



## paolo mercaldo

ok...  ero in dubbio perchè mi avevano detto che il nome di una società rappresenta la pluralità dei suoi componenti e quindi va trattato come collettivo


----------



## mjfloresta

Hai ragione che va trattato come collettivo ma (almeno in AE) il nome collettivo richiede la forma terza persona singolare, come in italiano.


----------



## King Crimson

mjfloresta said:


> Hai ragione che va trattato come collettivo ma (almeno in AE) il nome collettivo richiede la forma terza persona singolare, come in italiano.


 
E' vero in AE, mentre in BE, come spiegavo sopra c'è più la tendenza ad usare la terza persona plurale (almeno in certi contesti). Di questo si possono trovare molti riferimenti sul web (v. qui, ad esempio).


----------



## sivinka

Ciao a tutti! 
Ho visto che nel forum ci sono dei post riguardanti i nomi collettivi in inglese. In particolare mi sono accorta che una squadra di calcio è considerata plurale. Se ABC e DGH sono due squadre di calcio dovrei dire:
"ABC are better than DGH."
Però, leggendo la norma riportata in http://alt-usage-english.org/groupnames.html userei il singolare perchè ci si riferisce alla squadra nell'insieme e non ad ogni singolo giocatore che la compone.
Mi potreste spiegare bene questa regola, anche con altri esempi.
Grazie molte.
Anna


----------



## Tonza

E' complesso, con differenze fra l'uso americano e quello inglese, e un po' di flessibilità (o confusione!) in alcuni casi. Nell'inglese americano, userei il plurale per una squadra. Suona bene nella maggior parte dei casi perché le squadre americane hanno spesso nomi già al plurale: _the Rockies, the Nuggets, the Broncos_. Quando il nome della squadra è singolare (_the Jazz, the Heat_), esiterei perché suona strano, ma alla fine userei sempre il verbo al plurale. Questo vale solo per squadre, e non so spiegarlo; forse è proprio a causa dei nomi al plurale. Per altri gruppi magari userei il singolare, ad esempio: "The Chicago Symphony Orchestra is better than the New York Philharmonic". E' naturale così perché i nomi dei gruppi sono al singolare. Con i nomi delle band diventa più scomodo. Io uso il plurale quando il nome è plurale: "_The Beatles are_..."  Quando è singolare o assurdo (cioè quando non è un termine che esiste veramente) userei o il singolare o il plurale: "_Radiohead is_/_Radiohead are_".


----------

