# Grammar question - "England are"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 23, 2004, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-england-are/265681 "2004-09-23T15:13:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Improv\_Geek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b3f665/32.png) [@Improv\_Geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Improv_Geek)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-england-are/265681/1 "2004-09-23T15:13:35Z")
So I was going through the day’s news and I came across a story on Ananova about the Lara plan in England. And the article opens with “_England are_ planning to continue their short-pitched strategy against West Indies captain Brian Lara in an attempt to test his courage and try to limit his effectiveness in Saturday’s ICC Champions Trophy final.” Is there some grammar rule I don’t know about when referring to a country as plural? Or is this a horrid, glaring, down-fall-of-the-world grammar mistake. ---
**Author:** ![Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bippy_the_Beardless)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-england-are/265681/2 "2004-09-23T15:17:59Z")
I think it is just that the quoted phraise refers to England the Cricket Team, not England the Country. A team is a plural entity so are is correct in that usage. England are all out for 102 vs. England is near France. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-england-are/265681/3 "2004-09-23T15:18:38Z")
> [@ronincyberpunk](#): > > So I was going through the day’s news and I came across a story on Ananova about the Lara plan in England. And the article opens with “_England are_ planning to continue their short-pitched strategy against West Indies captain Brian Lara in an attempt to test his courage and try to limit his effectiveness in Saturday’s ICC Champions Trophy final.” > > Is there some grammar rule I don’t know about when referring to a country as plural? Or is this a horrid, glaring, down-fall-of-the-world grammar mistake. Using plural verbs with collective nouns is one of the many ways American and British English differ. The same sentence in an American newspaper would use _is_. Note that context is important. the use of “England” here is standing in for the longer noun phrase “the English cricket team”. So in a sense, the plural verb _are_ is not following the singular country “England”, it is following the collective noun “team”. In contexts where “England” refers to the country of England, it takes the verb _is_: _England is my home_. ---
**Author:** ![Terminus\_Est](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terminus_est/32/3087_2.png) [@Terminus\_Est](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terminus_Est)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-england-are/265681/4 "2004-09-23T15:19:54Z")
This is British idiom. It is not the country that’s plural but the team. Think of it as shorthand for saying “The members of the team from England are…” ---
**Author:** ![Improv\_Geek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b3f665/32.png) [@Improv\_Geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Improv_Geek)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-england-are/265681/5 "2004-09-23T15:20:25Z")
Gotcha! Thanks for the clarification. ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-england-are/265681/6 "2004-09-23T15:22:58Z")
> [@bordelond](#): > > Using plural verbs with collective nouns is one of the many ways American and British English differ. The same sentence in an American newspaper would use _is_. Yeah, but the same sentence spoken by an American MTV “Veejay” (do they even have those anymore?) would use “are” – “Duran Duran are planning a ten-month tour of the States…”. God, MTV were irritating. ---
**Author:** ![Trunk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/87869e/32.png) [@Trunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trunk)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-england-are/265681/7 "2004-09-23T15:24:58Z")
So, should we say, “The orchestra is playing tonight” or “the orchestra are paying tonight”. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-england-are/265681/8 "2004-09-23T15:30:45Z")
> [@Trunk](#): > > So, should we say, “The orchestra is playing tonight” or “the orchestra are paying tonight”. Whatever sounds most natural to you and your immediate cohort. As an American, the former sounds totally natural and “correct”. I am curious though – do the British use the plural noun in all conceivable cases? Or just in certain cases by tradition? For example: The herd (of sheep) is/are running up the hill. The school (of fish) is/are swimming under the bridge. The team (of footballers) is/are particularly injury-riddled. My collection (of vintage autos) is/are growing too large for my warehouse. That bunch (of grapes) is/are moldy. ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-england-are/265681/9 "2004-09-23T16:17:39Z")
My own preference in each of those would be “is”, not “are” (except it’s a flock of sheep, not a herd :smack: ) This one: > [@](#): > > The team (of footballers) is/are particularly injury-riddled. is interesting, as it seems to go against the “England are…” example above, but it just sounds right to say “is” in this instance. However, I would say (for example) “Manchester United _are_ injury prone”. I can’t really offer any logic there, sorry… We also use “are” with band names: “Limp Bizkit are a sack o’ shite,” for instance. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-england-are/265681/10 "2004-09-23T18:10:34Z")
My own personal usage, which is not strictly proper American usage, is to contemplate whether the collective noun references the group as a whole or its members individually, as in these contrasting examples: “The jury finds the defendant not guilty.” (I.e., _acting as a group_, we the jury arrived at this conclusion.) “The jury are hopelessly deadlocked.” (I.e., _as individuals_, we jury members hold different views which cannot be resolved.) “The committee recommends passage of this measure.” (We _as a delegated group_ encourage the larger group which named us to review the measure to pass it.) “The committee are largely in favor of the measure, but with a minority report which Mr. Jones will present.” (We’re divided 6-3 _as individuals_ on this measure, and feel that both sides of the issue deserve presentation.) ---
**Author:** ![wolfman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a8b319/32.png) [@wolfman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-england-are/265681/11 "2004-09-23T18:19:11Z")
> [@](#): > > We also use “are” with band names: “Limp Bizkit are a sack o’ shite,” for instance. That’s and odd one now that I think about it. I’m used to the words of the band name being used as if they are litteral, rather than a title. ‘The Beatles are’ or ‘the Rolling Stones are’. But ‘Led Zeppelin is’ or ‘Lynyrd Skynyrd is’. Which makes ‘Nine inch nails’ a wierd one since it’s one dude being are-ed. ---
**Author:** ![fortytwo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f9ae1b/32.png) [@fortytwo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fortytwo)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-england-are/265681/12 "2004-09-23T18:28:43Z")
> [@bordelond](#): > > I am curious though – do the British use the plural noun in all conceivable cases? Or just in certain cases by tradition? > > For example: > > … > > That bunch (of grapes) is/are moldy. I’d write, That bunch of grapes is mouldy. ( but we do like our u’s over here 🙂 ) ---
**Author:** ![wolfman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a8b319/32.png) [@wolfman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-england-are/265681/13 "2004-09-23T18:30:50Z")
And thinking about it a bit more with some of the newer team names. I naturally say “the Heat are” or “the Blaze are” but, “England are” still seems strange. It’s really arbitrary what sound natural. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-england-are/265681/14 "2004-09-23T18:42:08Z")
> [@Trunk](#): > > So, should we say, “The orchestra is playing tonight” or “the orchestra are paying tonight”. I’d use either, interchangeably. I suspect the latter is more common, but perhaps because of the ease of the contraction into “orchestra’re”.