Our compatriots across the pond, the British and Irish, have many wonderful aspects to their language, not least of which is their multitude of accents. You've got the light lilt of southern England, the bouncy and jovial Cockney, the proper Queen's English, and the deeper Scottish and Irish brogues, to name a few. I love 'em all.
I have less love for some aspects of their grammar, on the other hand. In particular, I take issue with their use of the plural form of the verb "to be" in reference to a singular entity. Here's how it pans out.
When referring to, for example, football teams, the British headlines will read "Manchester defeat Leeds 2-1 in a fiercely-fought match." It's as if Manchester is a plural. To my mind, Manchester defeats Leeds. Manchester is a singular entity, regardless of whether we're talking about the city, or more precisely, the football team. If you want to use a plural correctly, then refer to a plural entity. Say "The players of Manchester defeat the players of Leeds."
Unfortunately, from what I gather, this would be a futile and uphill battle, were I to undertake such a battle abroad. But I have seen evidence of this inconsistency stateside, and I will oppose it. (Said our hero, shaking his fist at the universe.) Rolling Stone (the magazine) often uses this improper construction when discussing bands. "R.E.M. Begin Work on New Album," the headline will read, for example. It just doesn't make sense to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment