atw: Re: Change of collective noun use - why?
- From: "Geoffrey" <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 20:23:38 +1100
. and then again there are collective nouns that have always taken a plural
verb. We typically say "Police are attending the scene", not "Police is
attending the scene". Likewise, "There are cattle in the field" and "Vermin
are under the house".
There seems to be few so-called rules of English grammar that do not admit
of exceptions. So perhaps we should shift our focus from "rules being
broken" to "rules trying to be discerned in acceptable, idiomatic usage".
The so-called rules of grammar are like mathematical equations that
scientists try to fit to a not unruly, but still not tidy, set of data
points. A parabola might fit nicely . except for a few outliers; a verb and
subject should agree . except for first-person and second-person pronouns
(and so on). I before e except after c except . After how many exceptions
and qualifications does a rule cease being a rule?
Rules follow usage; they will never dictate usage. Users will do their own
thing (as is their right), which is why we no longer speak or write in the
manner of Geoffrey Chaucer. And why those in the twenty-fourth century will
no doubt struggle to understand what we are writing today.
Those who seek to control language should first consider the labours of
Sisyphus.
Cheers
Geoffrey Marnell
Principal Consultant
Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
P: 03 9596 3456
M: 0419 574 668
F: 03 9596 3625
W: <http://www.abelard.com.au/> www.abelard.com.au
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Lewis
Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2012 6:54 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Change of collective noun use - why?
One further observation about the sing/pl issue with collectives: it has
long been recognised that we use those collectives in two different ways -
as reference to the collectivity and as a general reference to the
individual members. We say that the committee is united, but we often say
that the committee are not in agreement. (US English is much more rigid
about this; Aus E follows British English in recognising this idea of
"conceptual" agreement between subject and verb.
But that is possibly "too difficult" for some people. There is a general
principle that exceptions to grammatical "rules" fade away - the tendency to
normalisation is very strong. Oddly, that's why "media" and "data" are now
treated as singular, but because most people are aware that teams and
committees and governments are made of multiple people, those nouns are
treated as plural.
Not approving; merely observing.
- Michael
Other related posts:
