I’m comfortable being considered “a sassenach who has spent too much time in the U.S.” I yam what I yam.
I said “[the] Celtic [club]” the same way I say “[the] New York [club].” If it were in the plural form, I would have said “the Celtics.” “Rangers won the match”/“Yankees won the game” in my dialect implies any generic category of people that fits the definition of “ranger” or “Yankee.” (“Rangers won? You mean they didn’t use professional football players?” “Yankees won the game? So the Hispanics and Southerners on the team didn’t contribute?”) To refer to the proper name of a specific group of people in the plural, the “the” is required in my dialect.
I know they are called the 'Gers. And use of ‘the Rangers’ is colloquial like ‘the Villa’ or ‘the Arsenal.’
“What are you doing tomorrow?”
“I’m going to watch the Villa stuff the Arsenal.”
But I would be fucking laughed out of Villa Park for suggesting their name was The Aston Villa, in the same way I would have been laughed at in the multiple times I have been to Ibrox for claiming the team’s name was the Rangers. It’s just not correct, and it is an Americanization.
I’m not so sure of that, tbh. In Scottish English it would be fine to say “I’m away to see the Rangers on Saturday”. The city rivals would use “ra Sellick” in the equivalent sentence. “Rangers won” is the usual form though, as is “Celtic lost”.
Seeing as I’m an American, I have no problem using Americanizations when employing language.
The rest of your post borders nonsense.
And since we Members and Guests forgather at the Straight Dope Message Board on the World Wide Web to engage each other in a colloquial context … What the hell are you on about again?
It’s colloquial but it’s not correct, eh? :dubious:
You feel free to refer to them as “the Villa” in a colloquial context, but it’s not correct to refer to them as “the Villa.” :dubious:
So when you go to Ibrox, how do you “claim the team’s name” is the Rangers? Is there a form for that? Does it need to be notarized? I didn’t file that form in the post that’s being disputed, so I’m sure I’m safe from being laughed at.
I give up on this. You’re wrong, and the way you used it would have had you labelled immediately as someone who didn’t know what they were talking about. Not everything needs to be Americanized, even if you are American, or even if you are talkign to other Americans. The country won’t fall apart if you simply acknowledge that British English/Scottish English doesn’t require a sports team to have “the” in front of its name.
But go ahead. Call them the wrong name. They’re still the most successful team in history.
People do get irrational when talking about sports.
Do you see the topic of this thread? There’s actually a team called the Boston Celtics. Obviously, “the Celtics” is nothing like “the sheeps.”
If there were a team that of its own volition chose a name like “Sheeps,” just like there is a team that has chosen a name like “Rangers,” I would use a “the” in both cases.
Do you see the subjunctive mood in the statement of mine you quoted as well as No. 2 above? It was in response to Villa’s observation that I didn’t refer to the Glasgow team as “the Celtic.” Well, I wouldn’t, but if the club did have a name in the plural, like the Boston Celtics, I would have used a “the,” and it would have been nothing like saying “the sheeps.”
It has already been shown that “the Rangers” is in use by actual Glaswegians, so, you know, get a life. (Although it’s “colloquial” but not “correct” which apparently means that Americans aren’t allowed to say it because it sounds like an Americanization or something.)
In my quote I thought you were now talking about the team called Celtic at that point. From Glasgow. In response to villa. That’s what I was talking about, I don’t think we really disagree here. My mistake. Still, the rolleyes really helps your argument. Keep up the good work.
Just to be clear: I called the teams “Celtic” and “the Rangers.” Villa said this was inconsistent. I replied that it wasn’t inconsistent, because if their name were in the plural (which it conceivably could have been), I would have said, “the Celtics.” The ifs, weres, and would haves are key here.
My suspicion is that there are Glaswegians who happily refer to “the Celtics,” but it doesn’t interest me enough to find out for sure.
Sorry for that, but the tone of the discussion prior to your post was getting into rolleye territory. I’d be happy to take on a more congenial tone if we all agree that correct syntax in one variety of English doesn’t become “incorrect” or “just wrong” just because one has crossed some kind of abstract topical national boundary.
There aren’t. In terms of Celtic Football Club, that is just plain wrong, akin to the “sheeps” thing.
Anyway, is it plausible that the Boston Celtics (founded 1946 according to wiki) took the pronunciation from Irish/ Scots Irish immigrants who were familiar with Celtic Football Club (played first game in 1888).
Actually, that’s grammatically correct. Irregular plurals are used for the common meaning of the word, but not for names or nonliteral/stylistic uses of the word. Hence trees have leaves but the team is the Toronto Maple Leafs, people have lives but some paintings are still lifes.
Is the use of singulars in a plural context grammatically correct? I know someone who would say ‘travel ten mile’ instead of 'miles, or ‘weighs 50 pound’. He was born and raised in the US, but I’ve occasionally heard this form in other contexts.
The Scottish Premier League does include Dundee United, but I’d agree that it’s more likely to be a reference to Man U. Makes sense that he would pick two top class teams from different leagues, rather than rivals from the same league.
