We have partnered with TradePub to bring you free industry magazines and resources - no coupons or credit cards required!
Visit: englishforums.tradepub.com
This question is Not Answered
Latest post Mon, May 1 2006 3:40 PM by Cool Breeze. 12 replies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
+
147016
Wed, 12 Oct 05 03:45 AM
Is the word "High school" a collective noun.
Also, would the name of a specific school be collective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mister Micawber
+
147178
Wed, 12 Oct 05 03:43 PM
Not normally; I can't seem to make a sentence with a plural verb and the singular subject:
The high school is closed. Hinsdale High School is closed. All the high schools in Illinois are closed.
The high school is hosting a track meet. The high school is discussing the revised GPA requirements.
Joined on
Wed, Aug 4 2004
Yokohama
Veteran Member
30,842
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master-- that's all.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jussive
+
147260
Wed, 12 Oct 05 08:27 PM
 Anonymous wrote: | |
Also, would the name of a specific school be collective. |
|
Obviously, a specific school would be a proper noun, but it also
would behave like a group noun (a type of collective noun), that is, if
you were referring to the school as a collection of its members
(students, teachers and other staff, perhaps). Group nouns are nouns
such asgovernment, army, band , etc. There is some dispute as to
whether these types of nouns can or should take a plural verb.
Technically speaking, I don’t know if a proper noun can actually be
termed as a group noun. Maybe Mister Micawber can enlighten us on that.
Joined on
Sun, Sep 25 2005
Full Member
144
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mister Micawber
+
147312
Thu, 13 Oct 05 01:03 AM
(The above post was edited for type size only.)
My understanding is that a collective noun is one which, though
appearing in a singular form, can be considered-- grammatically--
either as a singular entity or as a group of individuals, so that it is
in concord (depending on context) with both singular and plural verbs
. Thus, the classic case: My family is going to Guam vs My family are feuding again.
Collective nouns also vary regionally, so that BrE may use a collective
in the plural where AmE uses the same in the singular-- e.g. the team is/are. School may well be one of these.
However, there are many nouns out there that are in reality groups of
individuals, but would not be classified as collective nouns because
they do not (normally, I always hasten to add) appear with a plural
verb: Chicago, country, etc. We do not (at least in AmE)
write (X) Chicago are arguing/discussing/enjoying a cold winter; (X) My high school are preparing for their Easter bazaar.
The properness of the noun, I think, is irrelevant. The Committee for the Reestablishment of Prohibition is/are in recess.
It certainly seems to me that if high school can be a collective, then Hinsdale High School can be a collective as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jussive
+
148062
Sat, 15 Oct 05 11:52 AM
| Mister Micawber wrote: |
(The above post was edited for type size only.)
My understanding is that a collective noun is one which, though appearing in a singular form, can be considered-- grammatically-- either as a singular entity or as a group of individuals, so that it is in concord (depending on context) with both singular and plural verbs . Thus, the classic case: My family is going to Guam vs My family are feuding again. Collective nouns also vary regionally, so that BrE may use a collective in the plural where AmE uses the same in the singular-- e.g. the team is/are. School may well be one of these.
However, there are many nouns out there that are in reality groups of individuals, but would not be classified as collective nouns because they do not (normally, I always hasten to add) appear with a plural verb: Chicago, country, etc. We do not (at least in AmE) write (X) Chicago are arguing/discussing/enjoying a cold winter; (X) My high school are preparing for their Easter bazaar.
|
|
This is not my understanding of collective nouns at all. Some collective nouns do only take a singular verb such as 'luggage' or 'equipment'. Similarly some collective nouns only take a plural verb such as 'police' or 'people'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mister Micawber
+
148069
Sat, 15 Oct 05 12:24 PM
No, luggage and equipment are merely non-count nouns. Police and people are unmarked plurals (like cattle)-- this is also a characteristic of collective nouns. If people were a collective noun, then surely children, sheep and mice would also be-- but these are just different ways of pluralizing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jussive
+
148083
Sat, 15 Oct 05 01:05 PM
| Mister Micawber wrote: |
No, luggage and equipment are merely non-count nouns. Police and people are unmarked plurals (like cattle)-- this is also a characteristic of collective nouns. If people were a collective noun, then surely children, sheep and mice would also be-- but these are just different ways of pluralizing.
|
|
Hm, well, at least one book I have on writing refers to luggage and clothing as collective nouns as they are a collection of items and we can use the words 'an item of' with them, unlike the uncountable nouns such as air or sand. I can't see how police or cattle are unmarked plurals. That being the case, what are the their singular forms?
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous,
4 yr 43 days ago
(Oops! Didn't take time to log in-- MM)
Well, I am now deep in the bowels of Quirk, et al, Jussive-- and I think there may be some--ahem!-- lack of clarity among everyone, including the texts, between group nouns and collective nouns, among other things. Group nouns (according to the book in my lap at the moment) are those you mention as taking an item of: a herd of cattle, a gaggle of geese, etc-- where herd (not cattle) is the group noun. Here, they list family and committee,
for instance, among the group nouns referring to people, with the
comment that there is often a choice whether to use a singular or
plural verb, based on notional concord-- i.e. what the speaker is
thinking.
Meanwhile, in another section (5.78, to be precise), they are comparing unmarked plural nouns-- people (sing. person), police (sing. policeman/officer), cattle (sing. cow?) with collective nouns, which ' differ from other nouns in taking as pronoun referents either singular it or plural they without change of number in the noun'.
In other words, they are not uncountable, but the singular form can be
in concord with a singular and/or a plural verb, while the plural form
acts normally:
The committee has met and it has rejected the proposal.
The committee have met and they have rejected the proposal.
The committees have met and they have rejected the proposal.
Incidentally, to hark back to the original question, Quirk lists examples of 'collective proper names': Parliament, the Vatican, the United States.
That's as far as I am prepared to carry the research tonight-- over to you!
MM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jussive
+
148113
Sat, 15 Oct 05 04:30 PM
| Anonymous wrote: |
(Oops! Didn't take time to log in-- MM)
Well, I am now deep in the bowels of Quirk, et al, Jussive-- and I think there may be some--ahem!-- lack of clarity among everyone, including the texts, between group nouns and collective nouns, among other things. Group nouns (according to the book in my lap at the moment) are those you mention as taking an item of: a herd of cattle, a gaggle of geese, etc-- where herd (not cattle) is the group noun. Here, they list family and committee, for instance, among the group nouns referring to people, with the comment that there is often a choice whether to use a singular or plural verb, based on notional concord-- i.e. what the speaker is thinking.
Meanwhile, in another section (5.78, to be precise), they are comparing unmarked plural nouns-- people (sing. person), police (sing. policeman/officer), cattle (sing. cow?) with collective nouns, which 'differ from other nouns in taking as pronoun referents either singular it or plural they without change of number in the noun'. In other words, they are not uncountable, but the singular form can be in concord with a singular and/or a plural verb, while the plural form acts normally:
The committee has met and it has rejected the proposal.
The committee have met and they have rejected the proposal.
The committees have met and they have rejected the proposal.
Incidentally, to hark back to the original question, Quirk lists examples of 'collective proper names': Parliament, the Vatican, the United States.
That's as far as I am prepared to carry the research tonight-- over to you!
MM
|
|
Ok, maybe we can get somewhere near the bottom of this.
Lets get something straight first: unmarked plural = irregular plural – right?
We are in agreement that ‘child’ has an irregular plural in ‘children’. Incidentally, I can’t see how the singular of ‘cattle’ can be ‘cow’ as it refers to any ruminant animal. Is it that ‘cow’ shares a plural with ‘buffalo’? Maybe one word can be the plural for several nouns. Hmm
Anyway, I still cannot see how ‘police’ can be an unmarked plural. I have now checked my Oxford English Grammar book and it classes police as a noun that is always in the plural, like 'arms' (weapons) or 'earnings'. These are nouns that don’t have singular forms. I guess the police (collectively) is more than just the plural of ‘policeman’. Besides, wouldn’t that be ‘policemen’? As far as I’m aware, this is why ‘police’ is listed under one type of collective noun, even though such words don’t apply to the ‘collective noun’ test you proposed, i.e. whether the noun can be represented by a plural or singular pronoun. I think such a test would distinguish a group noun, perhaps.
Words such as ‘luggage’ or ‘clothing’ don’t pass such a test either:
‘The luggage is here. It has arrived.’
‘The luggage is here. They have arrived.’ (Obviously, this is wrong.)
Such words are always singular, yet, identify a collection of things, and, therefore, they are yet another type of collective noun.
So we have three types. The three have different properties as I have shown. None of them are simply the plural of singular nouns and they all represent a collection of things or people and thus are 'collective nouns'.
Ok over to you, my friend.
<edited text size>
|
|
|
|
|
|