The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
My Grammarchenemy: Collective Proper Noun Treated as Plural
.Tripwire.
FirmanRegistered User regular
FirmanRegistered User regular
Read the bolded parts for the quickie-in-the-bathroom version.
I want to say this is most common in games journalism/discussion, but honestly I don't read much else, so it's possible it's more widespread than I am aware. Here's what it is: People taking a proper noun that describes a collective (like the name of a company) and conjugating its action as if it was a plural noun instead of a singular entity.
So headlines like:
"Nintendo decide to release another Mario game"
"Capcom reap benefit of a multi-platform release"
And just recently in G&T a topic was made bearing the title, "IGN give Haze a 4.5..."
I never really noticed this until a year or so ago, and I'm either increasingly aware of it or it is being performed with greater frequency. Is there anyone out there super deeply familiar with even the most obscure of grammar rules who can assure me whether this is practice is correct or not?
I've asked others before and they share my opinion that it is wrong, or at least seems wrong because it sounds so bad, but then why would so many people seem to adopt its use unless there was a compelling argument of its validity? Then again my encounters with it have chiefly been in video game news outlets and fora, which are hardly reliable bastions of proper grammar.
Anyways of all awkward sounding grammar flubs this one offends me the worst, so it is truly my grammarchenemy and I would like to see it defeated if any of you can help. I apologize if this should be an easy topic to look up but I'm not very grammar-wise so I don't know what terminology to use in the research of it.
I want to say this is most common in games journalism/discussion, but honestly I don't read much else, so it's possible it's more widespread than I am aware. Here's what it is: People taking a proper noun that describes a collective (like the name of a company) and conjugating its action as if it was a plural noun instead of a singular entity.
So headlines like:
"Nintendo decide to release another Mario game"
"Capcom reap benefit of a multi-platform release"
And just recently in G&T a topic was made bearing the title, "IGN give Haze a 4.5..."
I never really noticed this until a year or so ago, and I'm either increasingly aware of it or it is being performed with greater frequency. Is there anyone out there super deeply familiar with even the most obscure of grammar rules who can assure me whether this is practice is correct or not?
I've asked others before and they share my opinion that it is wrong, or at least seems wrong because it sounds so bad, but then why would so many people seem to adopt its use unless there was a compelling argument of its validity? Then again my encounters with it have chiefly been in video game news outlets and fora, which are hardly reliable bastions of proper grammar.
Anyways of all awkward sounding grammar flubs this one offends me the worst, so it is truly my grammarchenemy and I would like to see it defeated if any of you can help. I apologize if this should be an easy topic to look up but I'm not very grammar-wise so I don't know what terminology to use in the research of it.
.Tripwire. on
0
Posts
It's relatively normal. There's probably a book somewhere that commands against it or for it, but it's really up to the person methinks.
http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/grammar/archive/collective_nouns.html
I'm most proficient in Latin, so I'll use that for example:
"Manus impetum contra viros Romanos facit.", The band of men is making an attack against the men of Rome.
"Senatus legem novum constitit", The Senate is setting up a new law.
"Exercitus bellum amat", The army loves war.
Those verbs are both 3rd person singular, and the noun is singular. That makes sense, since Senatus is only talking about one Senate, much like Nintendo is only talking about one Nintendo.
So it seems to me like that should carry over into English, where the conjugation system is so similar. I remember it working that way in French too, but I wasn't very good with it and I can't remember how to spell a damn word of French.
But it just seems wrong as all hell to do a singular noun with a plural verb, because the verb refers back to the noun, not to all of the people implied by the noun.
When the plural noun can be used to imply a group of individuals, the plural verb is fine, but the headlines in the OP don't appear to fall into that category.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Speakers of other languages might universally find it ungrammatical in their languages, but we're only talking about English; only English speakers matter.
I obviously agree with Gotr, even discounting the rules of other languages, it just seems to make logical sense that a collective noun be considered singular since, well, it's a noun collecting multiple things into one.
Google Image Search suggests that King Edward VI is qualified to serve as our Grammar King:
I have e-mailed him my question and look forward to his decree.
Edit: FUCK. The king is dead, it would seem. Language is in a state of anarchy.
Incidentally, the subjunctive mood is also on its way out according to a lot of folks. Crazy world huh?
I decide
You decide
They decide
He/She/It decides
John decides
Nintendo decides
In english (at least american), the fact remains that Nintendo is a proper noun representing a single group. The Nintendo Company decides... The only way out of this is assuming Nintendo represents 'they' or 'you all'. However, since you aren't saying The Nintendo Game Designers decide or IGN's editors decide, you aren't referring to the group as 'they' or 'you all' (and colloquially, one is not to assume this).
Now, ultimately, grammar is a brittle beast. It resists change to a point and then just absorbs the change as an acceptable alternative if the practice is not squashed with relative speed. Due to that, I'd say LoveIsUnity's point about the modern linguist is perfectly correct. Hell, in 5-10 years, 4, r, c, u and such will all be acceptable alternative spellings for the common words.
Murphy's Paradox: The more you plan, the more that can go wrong. The less you plan, the less likely your plan will succeed.
This.
If you are referring to the corporation (Nintendo, IGN, etc) by its proper name, you are referring to a single entity and should use the singular conjugation of the verb.
As mentioned above, if you are referring to "The IGN editors" or "The Nintendo game designers", you would use the plural.
To me saying, "Nintendo decide to release Wii," sounds strange. It doesn't have flow and is somewhat awkward to say. Granted, it's a singular noun, but you are also referring to something that is an inclusion of many things. I've always regarded it treated as a plural of the singular in which the plural is the same word (fish, moose, etc).
It just seems too awkward to read or pronounce it that way. Probably just a disparaging difference between Americanized English and British English. I mean, we can still understand each other. It probably should be written towards its targeted audience though.
How do you conjugate nouns again?