"readership" with a verb in the plural
WolffPeter
can?
Examples:
Police enter the stadium.
The readership of this newspaper demand storys like that.
I think it sounds wrong but I'd like to hear a native speaker's opinion.
meirm...@erols.com
<Wolff...@t-online.de> posted:
>Can the noun "readership" take a verb in the plural like the noun "police"
>can?
>
>Examples:
>Police enter the stadium.
>The readership of this newspaper demand storys like that.
>
Since newspaper is singular, if you took away 'of this newspaper' it
wouldn't sound so bad. My press secretary will have a fuller
statement on my position after the election is over.
>I think it sounds wrong but I'd like to hear a native speaker's opinion.
>
>
>
mei...@QQQerols.com
e-mail by removing QQQ
Robert Lieblich
Well, this is the second I've seen, and I hope you aren't relying on
either of them.
The intervention of "of this newspaper" has nothing to do with it. The
answer to your question is that there are places where it is natural to
follow "readership" with a plural, principally the UK, and places where
it is not, principally the US. These are differences in the usage of
the two countries. The Brits are capable of thinking of readership as
made of of multiple individuals or as a single group, depending on what
they consider the sentence to mean. So your example is rare in the US
but fairly common in the UK.
Ignore everything else you have seen.
meirm...@erols.com
Lieblich <lieb...@erols.com> posted:
>meirm...@erols.com wrote:
>>
>> In alt.english.usage on Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:51:50 +0200 "WolffPeter"
>> <Wolff...@t-online.de> posted:
>>
>> >Can the noun "readership" take a verb in the plural like the noun "police"
>> >can?
>> >
>> >Examples:
>> >Police enter the stadium.
>> >The readership of this newspaper demand storys like that.
>> >
>> Since newspaper is singular, if you took away 'of this newspaper' it
>> wouldn't sound so bad. My press secretary will have a fuller
>> statement on my position after the election is over.
>>
>> >I think it sounds wrong but I'd like to hear a native speaker's opinion.
>
>Well, this is the second I've seen, and I hope you aren't relying on
>either of them.
>
>The intervention of "of this newspaper" has nothing to do with it. The
WADR, this reminds me of when my junior high science teacher said
water had nothing to do with things rusting. Now I realize he said
this because the scientific equation for rusting doesn't involve
water. WP said the sentence sounded wrong, and from that he was
concluding it was wrong. He may have just put those three words in
for explanation, but if he takes them out, it doesn't sound so wrong
anymore. Then he can reevaluate what he thinks and he can even read
your post. :)
>answer to your question is that there are places where it is natural to
>follow "readership" with a plural, principally the UK, and places where
>it is not, principally the US. These are differences in the usage of
>the two countries. The Brits are capable of thinking of readership as
>made of of multiple individuals or as a single group, depending on what
>they consider the sentence to mean. So your example is rare in the US
>but fairly common in the UK.
>
>Ignore everything else you have seen.
Except my previous post. :)
sr
<Wolff...@t-online.de> wrote:
>Can the noun "readership" take a verb in the plural like the noun "police"
>can?
>
>Examples:
>Police enter the stadium.
>The readership of this newspaper demand storys like that.
>
>I think it sounds wrong but I'd like to hear a native speaker's opinion.
>
>
>
Actually, I posted a question like this in another group. It all
depends... I don't belive either is wrong, but they do sound very
different.
If you do use the plural form, you are agreeing with the noun
semantically. In other words, you think that "readership" contains
more than one person, so therefore is plural, and a plural verb form
is used...
If you use the singular verb form, you are agreeing with the noun
grammatically. So because the actual word "readership" is singular
(NOT the meaning of the word), you use a singular verb form...
You bring up an interesting example, though. "Police" is semantically
plural, but grammatically ambiguous, because there is no grammatical
plural (polices).
So, while I, personally, would never say "The readership demand", I
would always say "The police enter".
Here's my question to another newsgroup...
In my Danish class today, I was discussing with my teacher a Danish
sentence that I found interesting. The sentence involves a family in
the rain running inside to dry off. I made a mistake in the sentence
by treating "the family" as singular when describing them as dry. My
teacher said I should have used the plural form of the adjective,
because the family consists of more than one person...
I told her that that seemed strange to me, although I know that some
English speakers do the same thing.
eg). The family run into the house and dry themselves off.
or... The family runs into the house and dries itself off.
(themselves off?)
Which sounds better? Personally, I would use the second one, because
the first sounds extremely.... weird. I hear this lots in sports too
and it drives me nuts... Because I'm Canadian, I'll use hockey as an
example...
Canada have won the game.
Canada has won the game.
Again, I'd use the second...
I mentioned these examples to my Danish teacher and she was wondering
if there are any rules regarding this in English. My guess is is that
it doesn't matter, but I'm wondering what other people think about
this..
Also, I'm not sure about my subject line... Do these types of nouns
have a name?
Thanks,
SR
anker...@my-deja.com
"WolffPeter" <Wolff...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Can the noun "readership" take a verb in the plural like the
noun "police"
> can?
>
> Examples:
> Police enter the stadium.
> The readership of this newspaper demand storys like that.
>
> I think it sounds wrong but I'd like to hear a native
> speaker's opinion.
It is wrong. Plus 1 for your ear. OTOH, I would like to
see "stories" instead of the word which looks wrong to me.
Even it the sentence is changed to "The readership of these
newspapers ...", the singular should be used. (I cannot say
"would be", as I have read the posts of others on this board.)
GFH
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
meirm...@erols.com
<bhi...@myhome.com> posted:
>If you use the singular verb form, you are agreeing with the noun
>grammatically. So because the actual word "readership" is singular
>(NOT the meaning of the word), you use a singular verb form...
>
>You bring up an interesting example, though. "Police" is semantically
>plural, but grammatically ambiguous, because there is no grammatical
>plural (polices).
>
I guess you don't live in Baltimore. Mimi DiPietro, who was in
politics for maybe 50 years, routinely referred to the polices. I
don't think it was an ethnic thing, because afaik no one else in the
city does. He died recently.
>So, while I, personally, would never say "The readership demand", I
>would always say "The police enter".
>
>I told her that that seemed strange to me, although I know that some
>English speakers do the same thing.
>
>eg). The family run into the house and dry themselves off.
>or... The family runs into the house and dries itself off.
> (themselves off?)
>
>Which sounds better? Personally, I would use the second one, because
>the first sounds extremely.... weird. I hear this lots in sports too
I think I would use the second but with 'themselves'. With itself I
have an image of a 5 person family with 10 arms huddled together
drying itself off as if it were a big ball. No regard for where one
person ended and the next began.
>and it drives me nuts... Because I'm Canadian, I'll use hockey as an
>example...
>
> Canada have won the game.
> Canada has won the game.
>
>Again, I'd use the second...
Me too. I don't think I've ever heard otherwise.
>
>I mentioned these examples to my Danish teacher and she was wondering
>if there are any rules regarding this in English. My guess is is that
>it doesn't matter, but I'm wondering what other people think about
>this..
>
>Also, I'm not sure about my subject line... Do these types of nouns
>have a name?
>
Yes but I don't know what it is .
>Thanks,
>
>SR
Robert Lieblich
>
> In alt.english.usage on Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:56:38 GMT sr
> <bhi...@myhome.com> posted:
>
> >If you use the singular verb form, you are agreeing with the noun
> >grammatically. So because the actual word "readership" is singular
> >(NOT the meaning of the word), you use a singular verb form...
> >
> >You bring up an interesting example, though. "Police" is semantically
> >plural, but grammatically ambiguous, because there is no grammatical
> >plural (polices).
> >
> I guess you don't live in Baltimore. Mimi DiPietro, who was in
> politics for maybe 50 years, routinely referred to the polices. I
> don't think it was an ethnic thing, because afaik no one else in the
> city does. He died recently.
I've been working on a case opposite some lawyers who seem to think that
"correspondence," in the sense "written communications back and forth"
is a singular with the regular plural "correspondences," as in "The Navy
sent three correspondences to the plaintiff during June." I've never
seen this anywhere else.
anker...@my-deja.com
sr <bhi...@myhome.com> wrote:
> "Police" is semantically plural, but grammatically ambiguous,
> because there is no grammatical plural (polices).
There are many 'collective' nouns in English, like police and
cattle. These collective nouns take a plural verb and there is
no 'additional plural'. The question is whether "readership" is
another collective noun. The answer is *no*.
Stan Busby
The readership is.
Is this not so?
Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
> meirm...@erols.com wrote:
> >
> > In alt.english.usage on Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:56:38 GMT sr
> > <bhi...@myhome.com> posted:
> >
> > >If you use the singular verb form, you are agreeing with the noun
> > >grammatically. So because the actual word "readership" is singular
> > >(NOT the meaning of the word), you use a singular verb form...
> > >
> > >You bring up an interesting example, though. "Police" is semantically
> > >plural, but grammatically ambiguous, because there is no grammatical
> > >plural (polices).
> > >
Daniel James
> There are many 'collective' nouns in English, like police and
> cattle. These collective nouns take a plural verb and there is
> no 'additional plural'. The question is whether "readership" is
> another collective noun. The answer is *no*.
No, I think bob Lieblich has it right.
The answer is "not in the USA".
Treating "Readership" as a plural is quite acceptable in the UK.
Indeed, there are cases in which a noun referring to a group of people
can be regarded as either singular or plural, with subtlely different
meanings. Consider:
"The board has decided to accept your resignation" means "we voted, the
result was that we should accept". There may or may not have been
dissent but this is explicitly not discussed by the statement, only the
result of the vote is given. This is very impersonal, and attempts to
distance the individual board members from the decision.
"The board have decided to accept your resignation" means "we discussed
this, and most (or all) of us agreed to let you go". This is more
personal, and suggests more of a consensus.
I'd expect to see the first form, for example, if the case were that
someone had made a mistake and offered their resignation and the board
had decided to let them take the blame and to kick them out. I'd expect
to see the second form in the case that a valued employee had asked to
be allowed to resign before the end of his contract term in order to
pursue some personal goal, and his friends on the board decided to
allow this. There are many other possible examples, of course, and
either form might fit a particular case better than the other.
Cheers,
Daniel.
anker...@my-deja.com
inte...@nospam.demon.co.uk wrote:
> The answer is "not in the USA".
That is the end of the discussion. The answer
is "no". As you will note in other posts, the
USA usage is the one desired, unless UK usage
is specifically requested.
Polar
[...]
> I guess you don't live in Baltimore. Mimi DiPietro, who was in
>> > politics for maybe 50 years, routinely referred to the polices. I
>> > don't think it was an ethnic thing, because afaik no one else in the
>> > city does. He died recently.
There was a cop named "Mimi"? Did he take any heat for his "girlish"
name?
--
Polar
Robert Lieblich
>
> The readers are.
> The readership is.
> Is this not so?
Yes, but it's not the whole story.
Is there a Brit out there reading this who can chime in? I don't want
anyone to have to take the word of an American for the proposition that
in the UK "readership" can be thought of as plural and take a plural
verb. But it seems to me that someone who can say, with complete
naturalness, "Parliament are debating the bill" (and such usage is
common in the UK) is equally capable of saying "The readership are
disturbed by some of the contents of today's issue."
Robert Lieblich
>
> In article <VA.000003c...@nospam.demon.co.uk>,
> inte...@nospam.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> > The answer is "not in the USA".
>
> That is the end of the discussion. The answer
> is "no". As you will note in other posts, the
> USA usage is the one desired, unless UK usage
> is specifically requested.
Here's the original posting:
<quote>
Can the noun "readership" take a verb in the plural like the noun
"police" can?
Examples:
Police enter the stadium.
The readership of this newspaper demand storys like that.
I think it sounds wrong but I'd like to hear a native speaker's opinion.
</quote>
It seems reasonably clear that the original poster is not a native
speaker. Why assume he was asking about the US only?[1] "Not in the
USA" is hardly a complete answer when the noun "readership" can take a
plural elsewhere.
[1] I haven't done a deja search, but tracing the references yielded
only the one posting from the original inquirer.
hmelton0
"Robert Lieblich" <lieb...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:39F1BB...@erols.com...
All the references I could bring for readership were singular, and I
think I would naturally say 'Parliament *is* debating the bill' and
'the readership *is* disturbed...) but no doubt there may be other
collective nouns where this breaks down. Others will answer I hope.
Harry M
hmelton0
pyrrhon1
line, the question was "Should the word 'readership' take a verb in
the singular or plural?"
As I understand it, "collective nouns" in the US usually take the verb
in the singular. Eg, "The crowd is angry." But, if I'm not mistaken,
in UK english, it should be: "The crowd are angry."
Is this correct?
Of course as the responders below have noted, if you are takings about
the readership of one magazine, the rules I stated above should apply
(assuming I am correct). If you are speaking of the readership of Time
magazine and the readership of Newsweek considered collectively, then
the word would be "readerships" and the verb should be in the plural.
>> > >The readers are.
>> > >The readership is.
>> > >Is this not so?
>> >
>> > Yes, but the readerships of the three magazines are.
>>
>> That's actually a very good example, because I would say that in
>some
>> circumstances one would talk about the "readership of the three
>> magazines" and in others the "readerships".
>>
>> The readership of the three magazines in the survey took the view
>that
>> ..
>>
>> The readerships of the three magazines are were in complete
>> disagreement on the question of ...
>>
>> It depends on context.
>>
>> The same is true with "readership".
>>
>> (At least in British English).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Daniel.
>
>Daniel,
>
>I cannot find any references which has 'readerships'. Sounds to me
>like the 'polices' or 'sheeps'. In addition I can only find singular
>references with 'readership'. In your example above I would have
>thought that the correct sentence was: -
>
>'The readership of the three magazines is/was in complete
>disagreement...'
>
>Excert from the OED: -
>
> 3. The total number of (regular) readers of a periodical
>publication, as a newspaper or magazine; all, or a section, of such
>readers considered collectively. Also attrib. orig. U.S.
>
> 1923 O. G. Villard Some Newspapers & Newspapermen 189 The appeal of
>the News to the masses has been so successful that it now has a
>readership of some forty thousand. 1947 C. L. Allen (title) A
>readership study of 3 typical Wisconsin hometown dailies. 1951 Sunday
>Times 2 Dec. 1/3 Mr. Stephen's+experienced counsel and reflections
>[will] become available to the whole Sunday Times readership. 1958
>New Statesman 30 Aug. 241/1 It holds its vast circulation+by grace of
>Mr. Gilbert Harding, whose weekly column (according to readership
>surveys) is the People's biggest pulling feature of all. 1963
>Guardian 10 Apr. 7/2 Another variation, reflecting different
>readership, is the background of the characters. 1971 Nature 2 Apr.
>310/3 In view of the intended readership the selection of topics seems
>reasonable enough. 1979 London Rev. Bks. 25 Oct. 2/3 The obvious
>difference will relate to the subjects generated by the nationality of
>the London Review's readership, and by that of its contributors.
>
>
>Harry M
>
>
Matti Lamprhey
> "Robert Lieblich" <lieb...@erols.com> wrote...
> >
> > Is there a Brit out there reading this who can chime in? I don't
> > want anyone to have to take the word of an American for the proposition
> > that in the UK "readership" can be thought of as plural and take a
plural
> > verb. But it seems to me that someone who can say, with complete
> > naturalness, "Parliament are debating the bill" (and such usage is
> > common in the UK) is equally capable of saying "The readership are
> > disturbed by some of the contents of today's issue."
>
> All the references I could bring for readership were singular, and I
> think I would naturally say 'Parliament *is* debating the bill' and
> 'the readership *is* disturbed...) but no doubt there may be other
> collective nouns where this breaks down. Others will answer I hope.
I would agree with Harry that it's difficult to find a context where these
words would be treated as plurals.
The original question proffered "The readership of this paper demand stories
like that." Of course we would use "readers" there, and the sole purpose of
a word like "readership" is to provide the singular alternative.
Matti
Daniel James
> That is the end of the discussion. The answer
> is "no". As you will note in other posts, the
> USA usage is the one desired, unless UK usage
> is specifically requested.
The English Language is the main language spoken in a number of
countries including, as it happens, the USA.
When someone posts a question asking "Can such-and-such a form be used
in English" it is not satisfactory to say that the usage is
unacceptable in one particular locale, one must try to ascertain
whether it is acceptable *anywhere*, and also whether it is
unacceptable *anywhere*.
This is an internet newsgroup. It is accessible all over the world, and
people from all over the world can (and do) contribute to it. It is
therefore an excellent place to ask questions of this sort in the hope
of obtaining an answer based on responses from all over the world.
Your assumption that only the usage commonly found in your own part of
the USA could conceivably be of interest is one of the most arrogant,
parochial, conceits that I've yet come across on the 'net.
I note that the original poster appears to be posting from a German
ISP, so I assume that he is not a native English speaker - in
particular that he is not an American English speaker - and that his
interest in English is not limited to American English. I do not,
however, assume that as he appears to be a fellow European his interest
will be limited to British English - nor should you assume the
converse.
Cheers,
Daniel.
meirm...@erols.com
<sbu...@jps.net> posted:
>The readers are.
>The readership is.
>Is this not so?
Yes, but the readerships of the three magazines are.
>
>Robert Lieblich wrote:
>> meirm...@erols.com wrote:
>> > In alt.english.usage on <bhi...@myhome.com> posted:
>> >
>> > >If you use the singular verb form, you are agreeing with the noun
>> > >grammatically. So because the actual word "readership" is singular
>> > >(NOT the meaning of the word), you use a singular verb form...
>> > >
>> > >You bring up an interesting example, though. "Police" is semantically
>> > >plural, but grammatically ambiguous, because there is no grammatical
>> > >plural (polices).
>> > >
>> > I guess you don't live in Baltimore. Mimi DiPietro, who was in
>> > politics for maybe 50 years, routinely referred to the polices. I
>> > don't think it was an ethnic thing, because afaik no one else in the
>> > city does. He died recently.
>>
>> I've been working on a case opposite some lawyers who seem to think that
>> "correspondence," in the sense "written communications back and forth"
>> is a singular with the regular plural "correspondences," as in "The Navy
>> sent three correspondences to the plaintiff during June." I've never
>> seen this anywhere else.
pi-ti-ful. I think it is these guys and not the Navy.
Daniel James
> >The readers are.
> >The readership is.
> >Is this not so?
>
> Yes, but the readerships of the three magazines are.
That's actually a very good example, because I would say that in some
hmelton0
"Daniel James" <inte...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VA.000003c...@nospam.demon.co.uk...
Daniel,
meirm...@erols.com
<HMe...@breathemail.net> posted:
>
>"Daniel James" <inte...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:VA.000003c...@nospam.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <0i77vs85d19mhh7bd...@4ax.com>, wrote:
>> > >The readers are.
>> > >The readership is.
>> > >Is this not so?
>> >
>> > Yes, but the readerships of the three magazines are.
>>
>> That's actually a very good example, because I would say that in
>some
>> circumstances one would talk about the "readership of the three
>> magazines" and in others the "readerships".
>>
Yes.
>> The readership of the three magazines in the survey took the view
>that
>> ..
>>
>> The readerships of the three magazines are were in complete
>> disagreement on the question of ...
>>
>> It depends on context.
>>
>> The same is true with "readership".
>>
>> (At least in British English).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Daniel.
>
>Daniel,
>
>I cannot find any references which has 'readerships'. Sounds to me
>like the 'polices' or 'sheeps'. In addition I can only find singular
>references with 'readership'. In your example above I would have
>thought that the correct sentence was: -
>
>'The readership of the three magazines is/was in complete
>disagreement...'
It depends. "We did a survey of the readership of "Rod and Gun" and
"Pinko Liberal" magazines, and the readerships were in complete
disagreement on gun control. (It might read better if 'readerships'
were used in both locations.)
There must be plenty of good words that never get recorded in the OED,
there must be plenty words that have never been used at all by anyone
but are still good. In fact they're better than good; they're "new
old stock".
I've often wondered how come some innovations get marked "not a word"
and others are described as innovative and colorful. But istm, if a
word looks reasonable and makes sense when an S is added to make it
plural, we shouldn't need permission.
>
>Excert from the OED: -
>
> 3. The total number of (regular) readers of a periodical
>publication, as a newspaper or magazine; all, or a section, of such
>readers considered collectively. Also attrib. orig. U.S.
>
>Harry M
meirm...@erols.com
<sme...@mindspring.com> posted:
>On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:55:11 -0700, Stan Busby <sbu...@jps.net> wrote:
>
>
>[...]
>
>> I guess you don't live in Baltimore. Mimi DiPietro, who was in
>>> > politics for maybe 50 years, routinely referred to the polices. I
>>> > don't think it was an ethnic thing, because afaik no one else in the
>>> > city does. He died recently.
>
>There was a cop named "Mimi"? Did he take any heat for his "girlish"
>name?
>
He wasn't a cop. But he was a city councilman. Not that I know of.
meirm...@erols.com
<HMe...@breathemail.net> posted:
>
>"Robert Lieblich" <lieb...@erols.com> wrote in message
>news:39F1BB...@erols.com...
>> Stan Busby wrote:
>> >
>> > The readers are.
>> > The readership is.
>> > Is this not so?
>>
>> Yes, but it's not the whole story.
>>
>> Is there a Brit out there reading this who can chime in? I don't
>want
>> anyone to have to take the word of an American for the proposition
>that
>> in the UK "readership" can be thought of as plural and take a plural
>> verb. But it seems to me that someone who can say, with complete
>> naturalness, "Parliament are debating the bill" (and such usage is
>> common in the UK) is equally capable of saying "The readership are
>> disturbed by some of the contents of today's issue."
>
>All the references I could bring for readership were singular, and I
>think I would naturally say 'Parliament *is* debating the bill' and
>'the readership *is* disturbed...)
I noticed, and your rephrasing confirmed it, that a plural verb is a
lot more tolerable to this American with the word 'the' preceding
readership or Parliament. Although I still wouldn't say it. :)
>but no doubt there may be other
>collective nouns where this breaks down. Others will answer I hope.
>
>Harry M
meirm...@erols.com
anker...@my-deja.com posted:
>In article <VA.000003c...@nospam.demon.co.uk>,
> inte...@nospam.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
>> The answer is "not in the USA".
>
>That is the end of the discussion. The answer
>is "no". As you will note in other posts, the
>USA usage is the one desired, unless UK usage
>is specifically requested.
>
He was posting from Germany, asking for a native speaker.
How does that equal USA?
>GFH
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Matti Lamprhey
> I didn't see the original post but if I may deduce from the subject
> line, the question was "Should the word 'readership' take a verb in
> the singular or plural?"
>
> As I understand it, "collective nouns" in the US usually take the verb
> in the singular. Eg, "The crowd is angry." But, if I'm not mistaken,
> in UK english, it should be: "The crowd are angry."
>
> Is this correct?
Partly. A "collective noun" refers to a collection of elements. Sometimes
it's natural to consider it as the (singular) collection. and at other times
as its (plural) elements. In the US the singular collection seems to be
preferred in almost every case. In Britain we swing both ways, and when
challenged about it we examine the context to justify our choice.
For example, we might say "The crowd is moving slowly down The Mall" in one
sentence, and in the next "The crowd are now moving in different
directions."
In the case of words like "readership" and "Parliament", many might argue
that these are not collective nouns at all but inherently singular concepts.
Matti
Daniel James
> There must be plenty of good words that never get recorded in the OED,
> there must be plenty words that have never been used at all by anyone
> but are still good. In fact they're better than good; they're "new
> old stock".
Why do I find "unprofessorlike" springing unbidden to mind?
> I've often wondered how come some innovations get marked "not a word"
> and others are described as innovative and colorful. But istm, if a
> word looks reasonable and makes sense when an S is added to make it
> plural, we shouldn't need permission.
I'd agree with that, as long as the result doesn't cause ambiguity or
confusion. I'm generally quite happy to add words to the language - or
to use things that aren't words, as some would have it - where no
confusion with any existing word arises therefrom. What I don't like is
unnecessary changes in the meaning of existing words, as these debase
the language and reduce its expressiveness.
Cheers,
Daniel.