Is a company singular or plural? Part 2
My recent post about the Economist Style Guide included a passing comment about whether companies were singular or plural. It generated a surprising number of comments and a some grammarphile controversy.
The Economist says they’re singular. I agreed.
But today (coming back from a week’s holiday in Goa), I’ve come across a situation which leaves me scratching my head - a two-person company. Writing about them as a singular entity seems oddly formal and doesn’t look right at all.
It just goes to prove the old adage: ‘if in doubt, prefer geniality to good grammar’.
Technorati Tags: grammar, writing, The Economist
Richard Millington wrote:
I recently experienced a problem with a client called the History People. Sounds plural by natural, but the company should be singular.
So, “The History People are a….” or “The History People is a….”
Posted on 16-Jan-07 at 9:02 am | Permalink
Heather Yaxley wrote:
I feel the use of singular/plural depends on whether you are talking about the company or the people within it. Perhaps it is better with a two-person concern to phrase discussion around “the founders of…” “the directors of…” so it is clear then you are talking about the plural people. Often companies are talked about as the entity when the reference should be more explitely to particular people - especially when emotional or human characteristics are involved.
Posted on 16-Jan-07 at 9:28 am | Permalink
Sherrilynne Starkie wrote:
Matthew, I spent a good part of the day yesterday in Liverpool John Lennon airport, unfortunately. But it wasn’t a total loss. I learned two important things. An airport is plural and it’s important to announce there are no announcments. As in: “Liverpool John Lennon airport would like to confirm they do not make flight announcements.” This announcement is repeated about every five minutes.
Posted on 16-Jan-07 at 9:32 am | Permalink
John Whiteside wrote:
I was perplexed by the Economist style guide when you first wrote about it because I’ve always heard collective nouns, including proper nouns, taking the plural in British English. “The team are…”
When I worked for a large British company, the execs also spoke and wrote this way (”BigCo are….”).
In both Englishes, collective nouns that are plural in form take plurals.
This Wikipedia entry describes it pretty well and matches what I’ve always observed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences#Singular_and_plural_for_nouns
Posted on 16-Jan-07 at 10:11 pm | Permalink
Michael Kenward wrote:
It is depressing to see folks holding up Wikipedia as a reputable source of information. I would have thought that there have been enough reports out there to prove that it is far from perfect and certainly is not authoritative.
Look at the reference to Gowers, one of the sources I use. It underlines the whole point of the Economist’s style book.
“Use of the singular verb is not wrong in such instances in BrE. At least one authority (E. Gowers, The Complete Plain Words, 1986) indicates that either is acceptable (provided that usage is not mixed or inconsistent within the same document)….”
Note the last bit. Style is about consistency, not grammar.
Posted on 17-Jan-07 at 10:58 am | Permalink
Lee Hopkins: Better Communication Results - business communication, online, blog and podcast consultant wrote:
[...] Bad Language / Is a company singular or plural? Part 2 Matthew Stibbe grapples with a stylistic and grammarphilic controversy: ‘if in doubt, prefer geniality to good grammar’ (tags: english,grammar,stibbe) [...]
Posted on 19-Jan-07 at 1:24 pm | Permalink
Peter Brooks wrote:
With regard to Wikipedia, Nature 438, 900-901 (15 December 2005) established that Wikipedia is as authoritative (or not) as Britannica. If you trust Britannica you can trust Wikipedia.
With regard to style, consistently bad grammar is not stylish - far from it. If the audience doesn’t know what is right, does that make the style better or worse? IMHO, style is as much about grammar as it is about consistency (even though the two may be mutually exclusive at times)).
I agree with John Whiteside. However, some entities in the USA demand that they be treated differently, which complicates the issue. For example the FDA demands that it should be referred to as “FDA” and not “the FDA” (so I’m already in the wrong).
Thus “FDA reports that…” and not “The FDA reports that…”, which even sounds weird, as if FDA was in fact an individual’s initials (like FDR).
But then I’m one of the few who reflexively cringe when they hear “different than”, “let myself know”, and any sentence that begins “Plus,…”
Posted on 28-Nov-07 at 7:48 pm | Permalink
David Silverman wrote:
How about this, then?
Can you write:
“Small Baker’s Company Ltd sells cakes and pastries. They can make cakes specially for you on request”
Or, if you are calling them a ‘they’, do you have to take the plural route to begin with, i.e. “Small Baker’s Company Ltd sell cakes…”
Posted on 07-Feb-08 at 1:27 pm | Permalink