Question for Brit Grammarians

You're dealing with collective nouns, dude, and colloquial speech.

A British dictionary will indicate whether collective nouns, and class nouns, take singular or plural, and when. It's usage, not grammar.

wayndom said:

Then why do the Brits keep going back and forth? Sometimes they say, "Microsoft is betting..." and sometimes they say, "Microsoft are betting..."

It seems to me that if a Brit dictionary had a definitive answer (no pun intended), they'd have settled on one or the other by now.

Click to expand...

Yeah, like American writers do . . . .

Look, people don't check, more often than not, unless they're editors of one sort or another, and colloquial usage, well, it's colloquial.

It depends whether we see the organisation as a single entity, or a group of individuals. When we say "Oliver's Army is on their way", then an organised group is marching towards us. Obviously, Costello is taking grammar liberties here, as "their" doesn't agree with "is". But "Oliver's Army is on its way" sounds stilted in a song.

The ones that "are here to stay", though, are a group of individual, breathing people.

An American expression like "Chicago is going to the Superbowl" is strange to British ears. Our sports teams are always groups of individuals. "Norwich are going to play Ipswich next week". Never "Norwich is going to play Ipswich".

I don't believe one can take the lyrics of any song as showing good grammar. Except, perhaps, "I Who Have Nothing". Even when I was 12, I just loved it when Tom sang "Darling, it's I who loves you" as opposed to "Darling, its me..." On the other hand, there's "I can't get no satisfaction." The Stones are all well educated, yet would we think that statement is good grammar just because a few lads who attended LSE sing it?

Sandi LeFaucheur said:

I don't believe one can take the lyrics of any song as showing good grammar. Except, perhaps, "I Who Have Nothing". Even when I was 12, I just loved it when Tom sang "Darling, it's I who loves you" as opposed to "Darling, its me..." On the other hand, there's "I can't get no satisfaction." The Stones are all well educated, yet would we think that statement is good grammar just because a few lads who attended LSE sing it?

Click to expand...

Hmm...I think I who had nothing is the object here. It all depends on the context.

Hmm...I think I who had nothing is the object here. It all depends on the context.

Click to expand...

I, I who have no one
Must watch you, go dancing by
Wrapped in the arms of somebody else
When darling it's I
Who Loves you

Are you saying it should be "me"? I will just be heartbroken if Tom was singing to be ungrammatically... *sigh* (Mind, even if he'd said "it's me what loves you" I would still swoon...)

Sandi LeFaucheur said:

I, I who have no one
Must watch you, go dancing by
Wrapped in the arms of somebody else
When darling it's I
Who Loves you

Are you saying it should be "me"? I will just be heartbroken if Tom was singing to be ungrammatically... *sigh* (Mind, even if he'd said "it's me what loves you" I would still swoon...)

Click to expand...

Not "me". I who had nothing is the whole object.

ErylRavenwell said:

Not "me". I who had nothing is the whole object.

Click to expand...

Thank heaven for that!