I have been following the World Cup coverage on the BBC website and I have noticed that they use a different convention for noun - verb relationships then the US media would use. For example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport3/worldcup2002/hi/matches_wallchart/denmark_v_england/default.stm
American grammar would suggest the bolded words should be is and has respectively.
Is there a logic behind the difference in convention and when did the US adopt a different standard from the Queen’s English?
Americans see various groups of people as a single entity, Britons see them as numerous individuals.
So the American way is: The school board (meaning a single board and a unit unto itself, which happens to be composed of several people) is going to…
The British way is: [The ten individuals who compose] the school board are going to…
When, why, I dunno.
A slight hijack…but in the same vein.
Why do the Brits say “Hospital” instead of “the Hospital”?
In the US, groups and corporations are, as I understand it, legally equivilent to individuals. Thus, say, a corporation has the same kind of privacy rights, freedom of speech, and so forth that are granted to individuals by The Constitution. (To make it relavent to recent news, the judge in the Aurther Anderson trial just ruled that it only needs to be proven that SOMEONE in the company broke the law-- it doesn’t need to be pinned on a specific individual for the company to be liable.)
Maybe this has something to do with it, although I’m not sure about the legal standing of groups and such in Britian.
I’ve noticed, however, British English speakers are more consistent using the plural than are US English speakers using the singular.
I don’t think it’s anything to do with the relative viewing of groups and individuals; I think it’s just a dialectical variation, no stranger than r-dropping versus non-r-dropping or Canadian Raising versus not.
I disagree; the average Bostonian isn’t going to write without the r. It’s not an issue of pronunciation, or lack thereof, it’s a substitution of a whole word. Sort of related to the missing ‘to be’ of recent threads.
You can’t view a language without examining the underlying logic (as shown by the commonness of the ‘exception proves the rule’ question on here), and is/are has/have does imply a different understanding of how a group of people works.
How about “England be”?
Arrr, England be a good country to pluder, matey!
</pirate>
How do you mean?
This is moving into “great debates” territory. I just don’t think that in cases like this, you can really tell something about the psychology of the language user based on a point of grammar.
I doubt that there’s a major difference in the perception of the individuality or coherence of group members that accounts for dialectical “government is/government are”, any more than French people are disposed to think of tables as somehow womanly.
I just find it interesting that some of the American announcers on ESPN use the British convention of “England are winning”.
It’s only the soccer guys. ESPN’s baseball guys would never say “San Diego are losing.”
I think it’s the same in Britain. It definitely is in Ireland - and the Irish grammatical usage follows the British.
My WAG is that some influential American grammarian at some point decided to demand a strict subject/ verb agreement, seeing the “subject” in these cases as a unit rather than as a group of individuals, and it stuck in the States. I doubt it’s anything more complicated than that.
I remember this being covered in another sports-related thread. I can search for it if necessary.
There is an informal convention in Britain (and Ireland) by which a sports team is referred to in the plural. It’s as though the statement read “the players in the team representing England are likely be unchanged for the second round clash against Denmark.” It’s just a convention, nothing to do with the legal status of groups, which I’m sure are treated alike on both sides of the Atlantic.
To our ears it sounds a little strange to hear “San Diego is losing” because according to our convention that sounds like the city is losing, not the team. But we hear enough American usage to realise that that’s your convention of course.
Reeder: Why do American newscasters say “such-and-such happened Wednesday” instead of “…on Wednesday” as ours would say? There have also been plenty of threads asking “why to the British say this, or why do Americans say that”. I don’t think you’ll be able to track down a certain reason why there are small differences, there just are.
Maybe not, but one of the djs on my favorite radio station would. It really bugs me when she says, on a daily basis, things like " Korn are releasing a new cd this week." She’s not British, so I don’t understand why she does it.
“The Rolling Stones is releasing a new CD”
Doesnt sound right.
In Britain “Im going to Hospital” means “I am going to have medical care in a Hospital”. while “Im going to the Hospital” doesnt have the same implication of being a patient (maybe youre visting someone or you work there).
That’s different because the name is plural. Had they been named “The Rolling Stone”, “The Rolling Stone is releasing a new CD” would sound fine to me, whether the group was one guy on a kazoo or a full orchestra.
I just want to point out that it is emphatically not a matter of correct or incorrect grammar. ‘The team is…’ and ‘The team are…’ can both be correct, depending on what the writer means. If the writer is referring to the collective entity (which is made up of several players) then this entity may take a singular verb. If the writer is referring to the several players (who constitute a single team) then these players may take a plural verb.
In some cases, the meaning dictates that the singular or plural must be used. For example, in the phrase ‘England will be allowed to see their wives after the next game’ the verb must be plural because the phrase can only make sense that way. An ‘England team’ cannot have a wife, but individual players may have wives. In most other cases, it is possible to emply either a singular or a plural verb because the phrase may be understood in two ways, and either version makes as much sense as the other. ‘England plays from left to right on your screen’ is gramamtically acceptable, since the singular verb ‘play’ agrees with the single subject ‘the team’. ‘England play from left to right’ is also acceptable, since the speaker is referring to the players, plural.
As a matter of custom, English speakers tend to favour the plural form i.e. we tend to see the elements of the group collectively, rather than the group as a single entity. There are also many cases, of course, where English does not offer any distinction between singular and plural. In ‘The team did well’, the verb may be pased as singular or plural.
In France, the word for ‘trousers’ takes a singular verb. They look at the top and see one item. We look at the bottom and see two.
I didn’t know there were so many amphipods on this board! Wonderful!
Fleas? 
The thread title:
In my world, gammarians are a group of amphipods, which are little aquatic crustaceans. Sorry, just a little esoteric humor to lighten an otherwise boring day.
For the same reason that Americans say “school”, “church”, “town”, and so forth. It is “the hospital” which (to my ears) sounds anomalous.
You go to school to learn. You go to church to worship. You go to town for shopping or socialising. You go to hospital for medical treatment. You only go to “the hospital” when the specific hospital, or its location, or some other of its characteristics, is in issue.