henma:

UUano:I was taught that using a plural verb for a collective noun is "wrong" in Standard US English.

What about "people"?

I have always seen "people are".

It is curious for me, as people can be translated to Spanish as "gente" or "pueblo" (depending on context), and that is always singular in Spanish (even when it refers to several persons):

El pueblo tiene derechos (the people have? rights).

La gente lo pide (the people ask? for it).

I was taught that it has to be used in plural, because it's (something like) the plural of person.

Is it ever used in plural? Or it also depends on the country?

Amike,

Daniel.

As soon as I posted that statement, I knew it would cause trouble! haha

So...I went and found an old grammar book to see what it says - and actually, this one says collective nouns may be either singular or plural, depending on whether the nouns is thought to represent a unit or a group of individuals acting separately.

The word 'people' [meaning 'gente'], at least in the US, is almost always used in the latter sense (i.e. not as a single unit but as many persons), so you will find it with a plural verb. Whenever 'people' is used in the former sense (i.e. as a unit or a whole - like 'pueblo') then it would require a singular noun, as in Spanish...however, most Americans don't use this word in this sense, so saying "The American people is feisty" would sound wrong to us...except maybe in longer constructions like "The American people is a feisty people". I don't know why...any other Americans with more extensive grammar studies care to opine?

When it comes to words like 'team' and 'club', Americans tend to see them as a cohesive unit rather than being comprised of individuals acting separately, and so they are used with singular nouns rather than plural ones.

In a popular song from my childhood, there was a lyric saying "the crowd are jumping", and I always thought that was weird, until I learned that they were a European group and that people who learn Brittish English learn different grammar rules than we Americans learn.

henma:El pueblo tiene derechos (the people have? rights).

La gente lo pide (the people ask? for it).

I was taught that it has to be used in plural, because it's (something like) the plural of person.

Is it ever used in plural? Or it also depends on the country?

Your translations are correct. I don't know for certain, 100%, but I don't think there are any English-speaking communities that would say *the people has rights* or *the people asks for it*. That sounds really wrong to me. Of course I could be wrong, too.

You have to distinguish between "people" (irregular plural of "person"; "personoj" in Esperanto) and "people" (a national or ethnic group, "popolo" in Esperanto)

The first (personoj) is treated as a plural, the second (popolo) is treated as a singular.

So "People live here" (plural verb, "Personoj loĝas ĉi tie"), but "The Chinese people has a long history" (singular verb to describe a national or ethnic group, "La ĉina popolo havas longan historion")

...However I've found that the word "people" as in popolo, singular, can also be treated as a plural, so alternately you might hear "The Chinese people have a long history".

But with "people" as plural of person, like "personoj", you would definitely use a plural verb.

erinja:...However I've found that the word "people" as in popolo, singular, can also be treated as a plural, so alternately you might hear "The Chinese people have a long history".

In my neck o' the woods (Oregon), that's about the only way you'd hear it. "Has" sounds incorrect to me in that sentence (not saying it IS incorrect, just that it isn't what we'd use over here, so it sounds odd to my ears).

sudanglo:Daniel, in British English, it can depend on how the group is being seen, as to whether the group word is singular or plural.

So you might say 'a large crowd is forming outside the Palace gates' (conceiving the group as a mass).

But I wouldn't be surprised to hear 'the crowd are getting restless' (seeing the crowd as number of individuals).

I would definitely say the 'Police do' and 'People are'

Its the same here in Australia. In fact, "The crowd are going wild" seems so natural that "The crowd is going wild" sounds.. strange..

I think though "commonwealth" English tends to favour plurality very heavily.

BlackOtaku:WPeople here would assume one to be a non-native speaker, or uneducated if one used a plural verb with collective nouns like that.

I didn't think your opposition to our plural-verb fetish was THAT intense It's funny though since as I've mentioned, we're almost the opposite. "The band eats pizza" sounds strange (not enough to be considered wrong, but I'd imagine there are some here who'd call it incorrect).

On the general topic of we English speakers trying to come to terms with how bad the education standards are in each others countries that not of us can speak the language right, I thought I'd bring this up here:

In the US/UK/NZ/SA/Etc, would you consider it wrong to say "We're going to (name of establishment)s"? (whether an apostrophe should be there or not I'm not sure because I've never seen it written formally before, only informally)

E.g., in regards to the Australian electronics retailer Dicksmith, I'd say "Hey, I need to get a new power cord for my laptop, mind going to Dicksmiths on the way?"

I know you ALL have "McDonalds", but what about other places with *singular/nonpossessive* names? E.g. "Super DVD Land" -> "I hate the prices at Super DVD Lands"?

(however, there's exceptions, for example if it doesn't sound "native", like "walmart", "shogun" (a japanese restaurant in this city's CBD), it sounds only half as right to use the -s).

ceigered:On the general topic of we English speakers trying to come to terms with how bad the education standards are in each others countries that not of us can speak the language right

I believe Professor Henry Higgins once sang a song about this very topic.

I know you ALL have "McDonalds", but what about other places with *singular/nonpossessive* names? E.g. "Super DVD Land" -> "I hate the prices at Super DVD Lands"?

This is sort of related. Recently at my weekly EO kunsido, one of the members asked me (as the only native English speaker!) whether 'zero' is a plural in English, and why. Eg: "That team has one point and our team has no points." I smiled and said mi ne scias. The spertulo of our group then told us that in EO, either was ok. He said one was more commonly used than the other but I can't remember which one, now!

In the UK, Ceiger, I think the usage is mixed and depends on the form of the name of the shop - whether it is like a personal name or not.

It probably comes from the time when shops were run by individuals (or father and sons). So Bloggs stood for Blogg's shop.

I might say I bought my TV at PC World (unlikely to be name of person) or I bought a TV from Dixon's (or Dixons) - Dixon being a possible surname.

On the shop names, yes, if it could be construed as a person's name, then you could say []'s, also in the US. But if it's just a word that couldn't be a name, you wouldn't say that.

So if the supermarket is Safeway, you definitely wouldn't say "I'm going to Safeway's". But if the supermarket were [made up name] Johnson Mart, you could say "I'm going to Johnson's"

ceigered:I didn't think your opposition to our plural-verb fetish was THAT intense

It's not that the opposition is intense. It's that Americans have no idea that another way of doing things even exists, so they think it's wrong.

The same as if, I don't know, someone wrote "I saw reds apples". Well, English doesn't have adjective/noun agreement, so "reds apples" is wrong, it has to be "red apples". An American sees a plural verb to describe a collective in that same way. Most Americans have no idea that this form is considered correct in other English speaking countries.

Not to mention got and gotten. Americans would see "I ate the cakes that he had got from the store" and think that it sounded wrong. Should be, "...that he had gotten" in American English. With "got" it doesn't look foreign, but it looks uneducated.

erinja:So if the supermarket is Safeway, you definitely wouldn't say "I'm going to Safeway's". But if the supermarket were [made up name] Johnson Mart, you could say "I'm going to Johnson's"

We would probably in this case say "Safeways". It just sounds "right"... It's probably a number of factors. Perhaps it's a youth thing too, but I think I've heard my mother say it before. Thinking more about it, I think -s would be more natural than -'s in the case of Safeway*, since it seems as if you are talking about an actual person's store (e.g. as if there's a person called Safeway, e.g. "safeway's fruit and veg). But asking mum and dad about this, they reckon it should be spelt -'s (e.g. Dicksmith's, JB's).

(I was about to write Safeways there instead of Safeway without trying to even write an example).

(also thanks for that little insight. I think the US view is similar to how Australians or Brits feel, e.g. in Aus anything we see as being wrong when it looks rather intuitive or like a smart way to do things is branded "American" (e.g. like misspelling "valley" as "vally"... I don't think that's even right in the US but that's an example).

Whether we're calling Americans very intuitive and reasonable people, or destroyers of the English language, is often hard to discern to )

Sudanglo:It probably comes from the time when shops were run by individuals (or father and sons). So Bloggs stood for Blogg's shop.

That's what I was thinking when I wrote "McDonalds" here, and wondered why there was an -s. I guess another influence that would have helped it along in tandem would be things like "joe's apples, Tedd's hardware and tools".

Anyway, it's like a little locative case in the making, although I guess since the plural and genitive all use the same letter, it'll probably just be known to future generations as the "it-sounds-good-so-stick-an-s-on-the-end-of-this-word-ative" case