Moose-tache wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 1:58 am
Quick Quiz, how do you render these? I realize some of these are not the most natural way to phrase these statements, but bear with me.
The Tongolese delegation to the UN storms out of the chamber: "Tonga _ leaving."
It's "Tongan". And it depends. If this is what the head of the Tongan delegation says, I'd expect "is". If it's what an ordinary observer says, I'd certainly expect "are". If it's an official or expert observer, it might be "is". I think the ordinary observer might go for "is" in certain contexts - so, if Tonga storms out of a debate where several delegates from each country can speak, it's undoubtedly "are", but if Tonga leaves a formal vote where there's one vote per country, it's probably "is".
Seven family members sit down to dinner: "The family _ gathering."
Depends. If the narrative emphasis is on the individuals, it would be "are", whereas if the emphasis is on the family as a collective, it could be "is". In practice, may depend on what the family is doing. If they're just hanging out, you'd lean more to 'are', but if it's ordering its assassins to kill the heads of the other four families, you'd probably go with 'is'.
Manchester United beats City: "City _ reeling from the loss."
Depends. If you mean that the football squad are reeling, you need "are". If you mean that the club as a financial organisation is reeling (sales are down, they've missed out on a lucrative champion's league place, etc), you probably want "is". Unless it's specifically that you're, say, reporting on a board meeting where the directors are all personally reeling, in which case it's "are".
People are arguing at their place of business: "The office _ fighting."
Probably "is", though it's a weird sentence either way.
In most cases, plural is the safer bet: plural subjects take plural agreement even when they don't themselves end in -s. However, when a group acts with such unity of purpose and interest that it can in a given context be taken as a single entity, it can sometimes be treated as singular. So in the case of City, the team is usually plural, because there's more than one of them, and they all act as individuals, albeit in a concerted way - if the team plays well, it's because its members play well. But the club is usually singular, because it's a corporate entity, and the individual actions and thoughts of its hierarchy are usually occulted from us. On the other hand, if in a particular story there's discussion of those individuals, then the club's unity can dissolve and it can become plural. But of course it's not always clearcut - eg, I just said "if the team plays well" ("if the team play well" is also valid, and more likely in some contexts).
Why is "office" singular? Maybe it doesn't even have enough coherence to be treated as a group - maybe it's more a place ('I'm at the office') than a group? Or maybe descriptions of group states are usually singular, but with exceptions where the group is known by name? (eg, "The department is excellent", but "England are terrible"). Notably, you'd often find something like "Head Office have asked for the report by monday" (you can also have "Head Office has asked for the report by monday", but it's less likely, and sort of suggest a greater degree of monolithism).
"
