OT, but I've seen this come up before and I wonder if HN could explain/justify this grammatical curiosity:
> "A gang were accused of selling weapons..."
"A gang" implies a singular entity (gang), but "were" is a pluralized use of was, as if "gang" was plural (as in, 'several gangs'). (I lack the vocabulary to properly articulate myself, since grammar is not my strong suit. I am probably not describing terms completely accurately). I've noticed this more and more in regard to singular forms of entities (typically compromised of many singular parts, such as corporations). For example: "Apple were..." or "Google have..." or "Microsoft are..." I notice that this seems to be more of a British English phenomenon.
My question is this: Why are people using what I will call pluralized modifiers on what I would consider singular nouns? What I would consider the "more correct" forms of the above examples are: "The designers at Apple were..." or "Google's board of directors have..." or "Employees of Microsoft are..."
Is this just a cultural clash between American and British grammatical conventions, or is there an elusive (to me) practical reason why one version is "better" than the other?
I apologize for thread jacking. Hopefully the more relevant comments will rise above this one.
A number of words like army, company, crowd, fleet, government, majority, mess,
number, pack, and party may refer either to a single entity or the members of the set
composing it. If the latter meaning is intended, the word (though singular in form)
may be treated as if it were a plural, in that it may take a plural verb and be
replaced with a plural pronoun: the government are considering their
position (alternatively the government is considering its position). See synesis.
As an American English speaker I find it delightful to read or hear occasionally. For me it's a nice, occasional reminder that groups are made up of individuals.
As a Brit who has lived in the US for a couple of years on and off it gets very confusing.
I can never remember which spelling is correct for the current situation for some terms: centre/center, tire/tyre, singular or plural collective nouns, etc. I know there are two variants, I just can't remember which one is the US one and which is the UK one; stuff like colour/color is easy, as is when to use sneakers/trainers (only made that mistake once) but some words play tricks on me.
Gang is plural, so in the King's English 'a gang were accused' and of birds 'a flock were flying' I've noticed that in various US sources a 'gang' is singular even though it is composed of many individuals, sort of like a corporation is a singular noun reflecting a collection of possibly many people. One of the things that makes English fun.
In "British" English, a collective entity (such as a gang, or a company) is generally referred to using pluralized modifiers. It's a cultural clash, there's no practical reason behind it.
> "A gang were accused of selling weapons..."
"A gang" implies a singular entity (gang), but "were" is a pluralized use of was, as if "gang" was plural (as in, 'several gangs'). (I lack the vocabulary to properly articulate myself, since grammar is not my strong suit. I am probably not describing terms completely accurately). I've noticed this more and more in regard to singular forms of entities (typically compromised of many singular parts, such as corporations). For example: "Apple were..." or "Google have..." or "Microsoft are..." I notice that this seems to be more of a British English phenomenon.
My question is this: Why are people using what I will call pluralized modifiers on what I would consider singular nouns? What I would consider the "more correct" forms of the above examples are: "The designers at Apple were..." or "Google's board of directors have..." or "Employees of Microsoft are..."
Is this just a cultural clash between American and British grammatical conventions, or is there an elusive (to me) practical reason why one version is "better" than the other?
I apologize for thread jacking. Hopefully the more relevant comments will rise above this one.