 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / March 2010Group "has" or Group "have"
It's been quite a few years since posting to this group. My how you've changed! Anyway, I am doing a brochure for our church and a question came up. We are writing about the United Methodist Women as a group. But the brochure reads "The UMW". So - do I say "The UMW has" or the "UMW have". I have always had a hard time with the group thing, and am especially confused on this one. Thanking you in advance... Pat On 10 Mar 2010, Pat wrote > It's been quite a few years since posting to this group. My how you've > changed! Anyway, I am doing a brochure for our church and a question [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thanking you in advance... I think in NAmer usage it's almost invariably "The UMW has...", but in BrEng it depends on whether you're talking about the group as a single entity or as a collection of individuals. "The UMW has existed since dibbly-dot", but "The UMW have a wide range of outside interests" would be usual over here.  SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > "The UMW has existed since dibbly-dot", but "The UMW have a wide range > of outside interests" would be usual over here. FWIW, me too. In BrE it would usually be 'have' in AmE 'has'. Also FWIW I think the Americans are right (for once!). Derek (BrE) >> "The UMW has existed since dibbly-dot", but "The UMW have a wide range >> of outside interests" would be usual over here. > > FWIW, me too. In BrE it would usually be 'have' in AmE 'has'. Also FWIW I > think the Americans are right (for once!). Arguable. 'Smith and Sons has a large range of stock. It delivers.' Seems absurd to me. 'Smith and Sons has a large range of stock. They deliver'. Obviously ridiculous because of inconsistency. 'Smith and Sons have a large range of stock. They deliver' Looks fine to me. It depends on whether the subject is considered as it or they to my way of thinking - right or wrong.. On 10 Mar 2010, Fred wrote >>> "The UMW has existed since dibbly-dot", but "The UMW have a wide range >>> of outside interests" would be usual over here. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > 'Smith and Sons have a large range of stock. They deliver' > Looks fine to me. It depends on whether the subject is considered as it > or they to my way of thinking - right or wrong.. To my mind, though, the "and Sons" muddies it a bit. The BrEng ones I had to adjust to when I emigrated from Canada were unambiguously non-plural collectives: "The cabinet have agreed..." "Chelsea hope to win the match" "BHS are having a sale" When I first heard those, my immediate reaction was that they sounded fundamentally illiterate. (One acclimatises after a few decades...) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >>> "The UMW has existed since dibbly-dot", but "The UMW have a wide range >>> of outside interests" would be usual over here. >> >> FWIW, me too. In BrE it would usually be 'have' in AmE 'has'. Also FWIW I >> think the Americans are right (for once!). > 'Smith and Sons has a large range of stock. They deliver'. > Obviously ridiculous because of inconsistency. Not inconsistant at all. in the first you are refering to the collective noun "[the company] Smith and Sons has..." and in the second you are refering to the people at the company who deliver. Signature"I know she's in there," said Verence, holding his crown in his hands in the famous Ai-Señor-Mexican-Bandits-Have-Raided-Our-Village position "Everyone has a photographic Memory, some just donât have film." ~Steven Wright >>>> "The UMW has existed since dibbly-dot", but "The UMW have a wide range >>>> of outside interests" would be usual over here. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > noun "[the company] Smith and Sons has..." and in the second you are > refering to the people at the company who deliver. By using the singular 'has' you obviously consider Smith and Son to be 'it'; then miraculously by the second sentence the same entity has become plural 'they'. That doesn't look consistent to me. But as I said the rules of grammar are debatable. The logic isn't. >> 'Smith and Sons has a large range of stock. They deliver'. >> Obviously ridiculous because of inconsistency. Nevertheless, standard informal North American usage. > Not inconsistant at all. in the first you are refering to the collective > noun "[the company] Smith and Sons has..." and in the second you are > refering to the people at the company who deliver. That's not why. It's because in informal usage organizations are construed as singular with verbs (except sometimes when their name is plural in form), but plural with pronouns. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "I shot a query into the net. msb@vex.net | I haven't got an answer yet..." --Ed Nather My text in this article is in the public domain. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.