Quick (hopefully) question about what the correct usage would be for a British English-speaker.
I believe that “family,” as a collective noun, would more typically be considered plural, but there are exceptions, and I can’t suss out which of the below lines of dialogue (spoken by a well-educated Victorian gentleman) would be correct.
“The family was burgled, wasn’t it?”
“The family were burgled, weren’t they?”
(In the U.S., it’d definitely be choice #1. Pretty sure we’d only treat ‘family’ as plural if the sentence involved the individual family members, such as “The family were squabbling among themselves” …though even then, many of us would say “The family squabbled amongst itself.”)
Thoughts, British folks and/or wiser U.S. minds than my own?
Either is correct, depending on exactly what you mean.
First off, of you are using “British” English then a family can’t be burgled, any more than they can be trespassed or arsoned. Burglary is a crime involving entering a premises to steal from it. A house can be burgled. A family can be the victim of a burglary or it can be robbed by a burglar, but it can’t be burgled.
Beyond that it depends entirely on what you mean to say.
If you are referring to the family as a unit, which is by far the most common, then definitely “was robbed”. Because “family” is a collective noun it is, by definition, singular itself and hence “was”.
In some cases you may be referring to the family members as individuals, in that case you can technically use “were robbed”, though for clarity you should say “family members were robbed” or “the family were all robbed” unless you have some really compelling reason not to. Usually you will only use the “were” construction under two circumstances:
when you are deliberately excluding some family members. For example: “While the wife was at work, the family were robbed”) or “When he was young his family were”
You are explicitly referring to the characteristics of individuals at different times and places. eg “Despite their houses having the best security available, the Smith family were all robbed”. If you are referring to a group event, stick with “was”. eg “Despite their house having the best security, the Smith family was robbed last night”.
It might help you to understand the distinction to apply similar uses to other collective nouns. “The herd was killed by lions” or “The herd members were killed by lions”, never “the herd were killed by lions”. The unit was delayed" or “the members of the unit were delayed” never “the unit were delayed”. “The bushel was rotten” or “the fruit in the bushel were rotten” never “the bushel were rotten”.
As I said above, at a a stretch and when specifically referring to the individual members you can technically use “were” with a collective noun. However if the reader doesn’t pick up on your meaning immediately it is jarring and if they don’t pick up on it at all it will appear incorrect, so best to add “family members” or similar for style’s sake, if not grammatical accuracy.
Or, you know, every major media outlet in the UK in the last 12 months.
While many of them are controlled by Rupert Murdoch, he still doesn’t count as an 18th century street urchin.
But whether that’s correct usage or not, I really don’t know or care. The whole idea that there’s a correct version of English out there somewhere that everyone should learn, is stupid to me. I speak to get ideas out of my head and into other people’s. If I succeed at that, then I’ve used English correctly.
This word is used extensively by such papers as the Daily Mail and Daily Express. Thus you get headlines such as “Families hit by new tax rise” or “Families suffer as house prices fall”, as though single people are immune from these phenomena.
Personally, I think **Blake **overstates it a little - I can imagine a British person saying “the herd were killed by lions”. It is difficult to pin down the logic in our use of the plural with collective nouns. teletype’s link gives a great example, Elvis Costello’s line “Oliver’s army are on their way, Oliver’s Army is here to stay.” Despite the inconsistency, the line sounds perfectly OK to me. I don’t think I even noticed it until it was pointed out by an American in a discussion such as this.
Thanks for the responses, all. I think I may restate the sentence so I can avoid the construction altogether. Chicken, I know.
Blake – the ‘burgled’ example wasn’t the exact line – I shouldn’t have come up with an example that was incorrect in a different way, heh. But thank you for the thorough response!
BTW, your “family was” cite has fewer instances (400+) than a search for “family were” using the same parameters (600+).
Damfino, are you being facetious? I can’t tell. 'Cause Americans would definitely say “The Giants are dead” (except maybe a 1930s Brooklyn or Bronx character in a Dead End Kids film!), and we’d also say “the police are looking for him.”
The OP postulated a well-educated Victorian gentleman, not a modernly educated assorted bunch of shills and shysters propagandizing for Wealth and Commerce.
We envy American media, since whilst tamer and sparser in detail, it seems less corrupt and better written.
*You cannot hope
to bribe or twist,
thank God! the
British journalist.
But, seeing what
the man will do
unbribed, there’s
no occasion to. *
[ Humbert Wolfe ]
He don’t ? Actually an illiterate tiny pickpocket brought up in the meanest slums of London Town doomed to swing befire he was 20 — and we could boast the best slums in Europe, where later as the saying went: ‘Policemen only entered in pairs’’ — prolly had a keener sense of ethics than any future media magnate…
Unless you are referring to a singular entity known as “The Giants”, for example a movie with that title, then this is just plain wrong in American English. For a collective entity known as “The Giants”, eg a sports team, the only correct usage in either British or American is “are dead”. “Giants” is already pluralised, and must be treated as such in any form of English.
"The giants is dead’ is universally wrong if “giants” is a collective noun.
Are you suggesting that anybody in the US would ever say “The police is pursuing inquiries”. In my experience nobody in the English speaking world would ever say such a thing.
The reason being that “police” in this sentence isn’t a collective noun at all, it’s just a plural. That’s why the sentence refers to “their inquiries”, not “its inquiries”. Police is noun where the singular and plural have the same form. Ask yourself, have you ever heard anyone refer to “the polices”? There is no such word, the plural of police is police. “There are two police waiting for you” is correct, “There are two polices waiting for you” is never correct.
Since the word “police” in your example is already plural it must always be used with “are”. In contrast, you will often hear the word “families”, because the plural of “family” is not “family”. As such “family” may be used with “are” or “is” depending on context.
Now if “police” were being used here as a collective noun, than US English would indeed be “is”, but then so would British English.:
“The police officers are pursuing their inquiries” "
The police force is pursuing its inquiries".
There’s absolutely no reason you should know this, because it’s getting pretty obscure even to Americans less than a certain age. However, it’s a reference to what once was a famous line.
Of course, look at the construction: “Her family were separated”, “This family was among other people”, “my family were going”. As I said, when you are referring to different members as unique individuals “were” is acceptable.
When referring to “This family member, and the rest of the family”, you are splitting “the family” into at least two groups, making it explicitly plural, and so it becomes acceptable, probably[referable, to say “family were”. When you are referring to “a family and other people” or “the family members after they separated” you are once again rather explicitly referring to the individuals in the family, making it plural and usable with “were”. "Saying “this family among other people” sounds plain wrong.
As a simplified guide, if you really mean " the family members were", then you can get away with using “family were”. If you mean “the family unit was”, then you can’t use “were”.
In your original example, the family unit was the victim of the burglary. The same event affected everybody at the same time and communal family property was stolen, so the family was robbed, not the individuals. I doubt very much that you meant to imply that the families members were each burgled.
It is however possible that “the family were traumatised by the burglary” or that “the family was traumatised”, depending on the degree to which you are referring to the trauma of individuals or the family. Only you know your intent, but if you say “were” your reader is going to be read individuals.
Once again, if you aren’t sure of correct usage and you want to use “were” then you really should be clarifying that you mean “the family members were” to avoid error and for readability.
“The workman’s family was still waiting, and Maude handed the child a shilling as she went out.”
“The family was at one time among the richest in England, and the estates extended over the borders into Berkshire in the north, and Hampshire in the west.”
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
“Dumb with amazement, Mr Gradgrind crossed to the spot where his family was thus disgraced, laid his hand upon each erring child, and said: ‘Louisa!! Thomas!!’…”
“…Miss Buffle made tea very sweetly in quite the Roman style as depicted formerly at Covent Garden Theatre and when the whole family was most agreeable, as they have ever proved since that night…”
“The whole family was infected with the mania for Private Theatricals…”
Charles Dickens (Good grief he wrote some long sentences
“Family was” has been standard when referring to the family unit since Victorian times at least, even amongst well educated gentlemen.
Indeed, and so would an American. “Over the course of six weeks the herd were killed by lions” would be OK, referring as it does to individuals. “Overnight, the entire herd were killed by lions” is clunky and jarring in British or American English".
Sounds OK to me to. You can get away with all sorts of things in poetry, including mixing “is” and “are” for the same subject, which nobody considers correct. Ever. That;s because the mind expects shorthand forms of expression and odd constructions. That’s what makes poetry enjoyable.
Those examples seem perfectly correct when ‘family’ is treated as a passive collective unit; however for burglarization, as in the OP, each single member might individually lose items.
On the other hand, 19th century aristocracy was not synonymous with being well educated ( nor ever has been in any century: which is not to say that they were fools or inferior to any other class ); and plenty of the rougher portions of the upper classes — not confined to those rusticated, but including those attached to the services or government [ excluding the Church or the Universities ] used constructions, grammar and pronounciations that would have horrified any professor then and now. ‘Don’t ye ?’ * Yallah* for Yellow, Lye-Locks for Lilacs etc. etc…
