Are organisation names singular or plural?
Bobby
Clark S. Cox, III
> Is it "IBM is..." or "IBM are..."?
It's both :) More to the point, both can be said to be correct, but
there are situations (IMO) in which one is preferred over the other:
IBM *is* a large company.
IBM *are* planning to release product X.
--
http://www.whereismyhead.com/clark/
Clark S. Cox, III
clar...@yahoo.com
ChiMon1001
"Bobby" <bo...@europe.com> wrote in message
news:995uib$hn8$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> Is it "IBM is..." or "IBM are..."?
>
UK both are acceptable, i.e. "IBM are" and " IBM is". In North America I
think one would say "IBM is", except perhaps in very informal speech.
Roger
Robert Lieblich
I agree, and as an American I would add that it is common, in the
US, to use both a singular verb and a plural pronoun to refer to a
company, even in the same sentence: "IBM is having a special sale on
all their dot-matrix printers." Change the number of either the
verb or the pronoun and it doesn't sound quite right.
Sorcha Fenlon
style? I ask because at work (UK) we're told to always treat company names as
singular, i.e "Sony is releasing a new game". I'm intrigued because
'government', which is an organisation, can be singular or plural.
Robert Lieblich
>
> Do you know if there is a firm rule about this or is it a matter of house
> style? I ask because at work (UK) we're told to always treat company names as
> singular, i.e "Sony is releasing a new game". I'm intrigued because
> 'government', which is an organisation, can be singular or plural.
Companies can adopt any damned style they want. If the boss decides
that all corporations are female and must be referred to as "she"
and "her," that's what you had better refer to them as. After four
years of hanging around here and AUE, I've seen all sorts of
monstrosities that various posters insisted were inflicted on them
by bosses, or teachers, or others with power over them. It's a
wonder the language survives. (It does, doesn't it?)
My understanding is that customary usage in the UK is "Harrod's are
having a sale" rather than "Harrod's is ..." But if the boss wants
Harrod's to be singular for all purposes, do what he/she says. It's
rare indeed that the preservation of customary usage trumps the
desire to keep one's job.
BTW, I think that even in the UK it would likely be "Sony *is*
releasing a new game," because there Sony is thought of as a single
entity, whereas Harrod's seems to be thought of as an aggregate of
stores or salespersons in "Harrod's are having a sale." Americans,
to repeat, almost always use the singular, so questions like this do
not arise in American English usage.
ioi...@iiooioi.ioiiio.ioi
>
> BTW, I think that even in the UK it would likely be "Sony *is*
> releasing a new game," because there Sony is thought of as a single
> entity, whereas Harrod's seems to be thought of as an aggregate of
> stores or salespersons in "Harrod's are having a sale." Americans,
> to repeat, almost always use the singular, so questions like this do
> not arise in American English usage.
Maybe it's just me or the people I associate with, I think it's very
common for organizations to be referred to as "they" (as opposed to
"it").
psi
> releasing a new game," because there Sony is thought of as a single
> entity, whereas Harrod's seems to be thought of as an aggregate of
> stores or salespersons in "Harrod's are having a sale."
Does a tourist in London ask, "Where are Harrod's?" :-)
psi
Bobby
"Clark S. Cox, III" <clar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1eqj0hl.1tbcgzt12hq4wqN%clar...@yahoo.com...
Odysseus
read as, "Where is [the] Harrod's [store]?" A journalist might ask a
corporate representative, "Where are Harrod's on the question of
accountability to consumers?"
--Odysseus
Odysseus
>
> Can you explain the distinction?
>
entity or as a collection of individuals. Perhaps a stronger distinction
may be found in the following: "The jury delivered its verdict;" "The
jury were moved by the victim's testimony."
In the IBM example, the sentence with IBM singular is about the company
itself; the plural sentence shifts attention to its managers or
marketers, who make the plans.
--Odysseus
Matti Lamprhey
> ChiMon1001 wrote:
> > "Bobby" <bo...@europe.com> wrote...
> > > Is it "IBM is..." or "IBM are..."?
> > >
> > > It depends largely on whether you live in North America or the UK.
> > > In the UK both are acceptable, i.e. "IBM are" and " IBM is".
> > > In North America I think one would say "IBM is", except perhaps
> > > in very informal speech.
>
> I agree, and as an American I would add that it is common, in the
> US, to use both a singular verb and a plural pronoun to refer to a
> company, even in the same sentence: "IBM is having a special sale on
> all their dot-matrix printers." Change the number of either the
> verb or the pronoun and it doesn't sound quite right.
I hadn't spotted that tendency, Robert, and it puzzles me. Always using a
singular verb for corporations has the powerful virtue of consistency, so
what does this plural pronoun tell us about the way Americans perceive this
type of entity?
Is it simply a reluctance to use "its"? A link with singular "they"?
Matti
Peter Duncanson
Harrods does not have an apostrophe, it therefore has a plural "look
and feel" which might influence people to refer to "Harrods are"
rather than "Harrods is".
Just a thought.
--
Peter D.
Robert Lieblich
I don't know how it got that way, i.e., what linguistic instinct is
implicated, but that's the way it got. Entities like corporations,
governments, committees, etc., are grammatical singulars for
purposes of the verbs they take, but they often take plural
pronouns. The "rule" about the verb is almost absolute -- always
singular. The plural pronoun is but a tendency, and you can find
plenty of examples of both singular and plural. Neither is
incorrect.
Robert Lieblich
[ . . . ]
> Harrods does not have an apostrophe, it therefore has a plural "look
> and feel" which might influence people to refer to "Harrods are"
> rather than "Harrods is".
> Just a thought.
And a good one. But in the US Macy*s (their logo uses a star in
place of the apostrophe) and Procter & Gamble still take singular
verbs. I'll bet that UK businesses whose names are pure singulars
still take plural verbs quite frequently.
BTW, did you notice the plural pronoun in the parenthetical comment
on Macy*s? That's how I wrote it naturally.
Dr Robin Bignall
<lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
[..]
> It's a
>wonder the language survives. (It does, doesn't it?)
>
Debatable.
and, for $500,000, what is the ....
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docr...@ntlworld.com)
Peter Duncanson
Yes. I was just looking at the Harrods website, because I had a vague
memory that the store was founded by a Mr Harrod, which would raise
the case of the mysteriously disappearing apostrophe.
In 1898 it become a public company as "Harrod's Stores Limited".
By 1919/1020 the apostrophe was lost with the formation of Harrods
(Continental) Ltd and Harrods (North America) Ltd.
The store refers to itself in the singular when the name is used, but
the pronouns used when referring to itself are "we" and "us".
For example:
<quote>
The Harrods Recruitment Centre is based in Brompton Place,
Knightsbridge and is conveniently situated near the store.
We have an open door policy whereby those of you wishing to apply for
a position are welcome to visit us during open hours, an appointment
is not necessary.
For those [school-leavers] with A levels or equivalent, Harrods offers
a one-year foundation scheme in general retail.
<endquote>
--
Peter D.
udarrell
> Bobby wrote:
> >
> > Can you explain the distinction?
> >
> Essentially it's whether one wishes to emphasize the organization as an
> entity or as a collection of individuals. Perhaps a stronger distinction
> may be found in the following: "The jury delivered its verdict;" "The
> jury were moved by the victim's testimony."
"The * jurors * were moved by the victims testimony." Certainly sounds
better to me.
> In the IBM example, the sentence with IBM singular is about the company
> itself; the plural sentence shifts attention to its managers or
> marketers, who make the plans.
Is clarity of any value? Would it be improved semantics and more explicit
departments and persons were refer to?
Darrell udarrell
> --Odysseus
meirm...@erols.com
In alt.english.usage on Tue, 20 Mar 2001 19:23:35 GMT
as...@alt.fan.natasha (miscreant) posted:
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether
remove the QQQ or not you are posting the same letter.
Robert Lieblich
>
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 22:19:50 -0500, Robert Lieblich
> <lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> [..]
> > It's a
> >wonder the language survives. (It does, doesn't it?)
> >
> Debatable.
>
> and, for $500,000, what is the ....
Brahms. In C minor. [Can you hum it?]
Odysseus
the 'members' instead of the 'collectives' avoids the question at hand
rather than addressing it.
--Odysseus
Stan Busby
In the US, a corporation like RCA is legally
treated as an individual, just like you and I.
Hence "RCA is selling NBC to GE". Rightpondians
perceive a corporation as a plurality of people
and come up with "RCA are selling...."
The Aussies may be different as they append the
abbreviation "PTY" which implies a group, but
whether it is treated as singular or plural I
don't know.
meirm...@erols.com
Lamprhey" <ma...@totally-official.com> posted:
>"Robert Lieblich" <lieb...@erols.com> wrote...
>> ChiMon1001 wrote:
>> > "Bobby" <bo...@europe.com> wrote...
>> > > Is it "IBM is..." or "IBM are..."?
>> > >
>> > > It depends largely on whether you live in North America or the UK.
>> > > In the UK both are acceptable, i.e. "IBM are" and " IBM is".
>> > > In North America I think one would say "IBM is", except perhaps
>> > > in very informal speech.
I don't think I could manage to say it even informally. I think it
stands for International Business Machines but I don't see them as
individual machines anymore. :)
>> I agree, and as an American I would add that it is common, in the
>> US, to use both a singular verb and a plural pronoun to refer to a
>> company, even in the same sentence: "IBM is having a special sale on
>> all their dot-matrix printers." Change the number of either the
>> verb or the pronoun and it doesn't sound quite right.
They do say this a lot lately but maybe you're younger than I. Saying
"its dot matrix printers" to refer to IBM is no problem for me.
Really.
>
>I hadn't spotted that tendency, Robert, and it puzzles me. Always using a
>singular verb for corporations has the powerful virtue of consistency, so
>what does this plural pronoun tell us about the way Americans perceive this
>type of entity?
>
>Is it simply a reluctance to use "its"? A link with singular "they"?
>
Saying 'their' reminds me of those who say their instead of his
because they don't want to offend females. Maybe that's where it
comes from. I'm not happy about the first, but I don't think it
should spread to neuter things.
>Matti
meirm...@erols.com
Duncanson <ma...@peterR3M0VETH1Sduncanson.net> posted:
Well they can't say, I have an open door policy. "The store" has an
open door policy. I think they refer to the employees here or the
mangagment, and this is done partly for public relations. To
personalize themselves. What might count more is how others call
them.
>a position are welcome to visit us during open hours, an appointment
>is not necessary.
>
>For those [school-leavers] with A levels or equivalent, Harrods offers
>a one-year foundation scheme in general retail.
><endquote>
As an aside, in official documents of the United States, "the United
States are" was used before the Civil War and "the United States" is
was used from shortly after on.
I don't know what the United States of Mexico does. :)
Dr Robin Bignall
<lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
>Dr Robin Bignall wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 22:19:50 -0500, Robert Lieblich
>> <lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>> > It's a
>> >wonder the language survives. (It does, doesn't it?)
>> >
>> Debatable.
>>
>> and, for $500,000, what is the ....
>
>Brahms. In C minor. [Can you hum it?]
You take the twiddly bits on the swannee whistle and I'll one-note
kazoo it. It'll be a chart-buster...
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docr...@ntlworld.com)
Daniel Miller
At college here in the US, I was corrected by my professor for
treating companies or corporations in the plural, ie "eBay were making
plans to expand into Europe" was supposed be "eBay was making plans to
expand into Europe."
One could also examine the case of rock groups where I suppose
"Motorhead are playing the Hammersmith Odeon" would be wrong, although
it seems right to me. Of course the Beatles would always be plural.
>As an aside, in official documents of the United States, "the United
>States are" was used before the Civil War and "the United States" is
>was used from shortly after on.
That's an interesting one. "States" is certainly an obvious plural.
meirm...@erols.com
(Daniel Miller) posted:
>On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 04:39:38 -0500, meirm...@erols.com wrote:
>
>At college here in the US, I was corrected by my professor for
>treating companies or corporations in the plural, ie "eBay were making
>plans to expand into Europe" was supposed be "eBay was making plans to
>expand into Europe."
Was this a professor of English and how did he react to your telling
him it was correct in England. Did he expect you to change your
speech as well? I think someone said both forms were correct in
England. What would he expect if only one form were?
>
>One could also examine the case of rock groups where I suppose
>"Motorhead are playing the Hammersmith Odeon" would be wrong, although
>it seems right to me. Of course the Beatles would always be plural.
Well they were composed of individual Beatles who were the total of
the group. I wonder if The Greatful Dead could be looked at that
way. Or the Mamas and the Papas (may Mr. Philips rest in peace). The
Lovin' Spoonful is appearing... "Are" doesn't soundn't sound too bad
in any of these cases. But "Ebay are" sure does.
What about "Warner Brothers are"? If all of the brothers actually
were involved, maybe but I think everyone knows that it is only 2 or 3
of them at most and there are so many other people also, that it is
"Warner Brothers is"
>>As an aside, in official documents of the United States, "the United
>>States are" was used before the Civil War and "the United States" is
>>was used from shortly after on.
>
>That's an interesting one. "States" is certainly an obvious plural.
They didn't want us, when looking at us as a country, to think of
ourselves as separate states. They thought that would discourage a
future civil war. Before the Constitution was adopted, there were a
few years (2?) under Articles of Confederation in which the states
were even more separate, something like Europe is today, maybe moreso
(I looked that up and it wasn't one word. How come it looks right?)
maybe more so. (That seems wrong. Can it be so? Yes. Can it be most
so? No. But being "so" doesn't seem like the same so as being more
SO. On the other hand lessso certainly doesn't seem right. It must
be less so. So if it can be less so, it can be more so. It just
can't be least so or most so.) OK, where was I? Maybe more so. There
was no regulation of product quality like you guys have, but then
there was none of that anywhere, was there? There was no ability for
the central government to tax, or raise an army. I am not sure what
power it did have. The delegates to Philadelphia were only supposed
to make some changes, but instead they started a whole new document
and came up with the Constitution, which took ??around a year to be
ratified by 9 states of 13 to be effective.
Peter Duncanson
Yes, but in Rightpondia a corporation or more commonly, a "company",
is a "legal person" and is treated in law as an individual.
I believe that historically "company" originated as a group term
referring to the shareholders.
This singularity of a company does not prevent the use of "are"
outside legal documents and courts.
>The Aussies may be different as they append the
>abbreviation "PTY" which implies a group, but
>whether it is treated as singular or plural I
>don't know.
--
Peter D.
Peter Duncanson
Whereas "the US" is an obvious singular.
--
Peter D.
Don Aitken
I seem to remember hearing that in international treaties between the
US and the UK the US government is singular and the UK government are
plural. Must lead to some peculiar constructions.
--
Don Aitken
Don Aitken
A corporation is a "legal person" in any jurisdiction. I don't thing
this has anything to do with the point of usage we're discussing.
--
Don Aitken
ChiMon1001
"Daniel Miller" <DC...@USA.NET> wrote in message
news:3ab8959...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 04:39:38 -0500, meirm...@erols.com wrote:
>
> At college here in the US, I was corrected by my professor for
> treating companies or corporations in the plural, ie "eBay were making
> plans to expand into Europe" was supposed be "eBay was making plans to
> expand into Europe."
>
> One could also examine the case of rock groups where I suppose
> "Motorhead are playing the Hammersmith Odeon" would be wrong, although
> it seems right to me. Of course the Beatles would always be plural.
"Motorhead are" would not be wrong in Britain (nor would "Motorhead is") no
matter what the "experts" might say. However, I think it's useful to
discriminate between occasions when one wishes to stress the unity of a
company, group or organisation, etc. and those when one wishes to stress
differences of opinion, etc. within them.
Examples: "The Labour Party is united" and "The Labour Party are divided"
"Motorhead is becoming more popular" and "Motorhead are breaking up".
I consider the above discrimination to be a preference that can be copied or
rejected as one wishes rather than as a "rule".
Roger