Collective nouns and the squiggly green line

Are the grammar bots scaring us away from a long-established space-saving usage?

Last week's little victory was confirming that the use of what we might call "singular their" in English goes back centuries. "Everyone has their own opinion about that," for instance.

I'm not saying you have to like it, dear reader. I'm just saying that this is the fact.

Now I've discovered, alive and well and living on the Internet, a rule I learned in school, but haven't heard invoked much recently: that (singular) collective nouns sometimes take plural verbs.

"Our staff come from all over the world." There – I've written it. And Microsoft Word has thrown a squiggly green line under "staff come," which disappears if I add an "s" to "come."

Ah, but if I refer to a collection of individuals from all over who together make up "our staff," the plural verb is just right. When these individuals act as one, however, the singular verb is correct: "Our staff meets every Monday at 10 a.m."

Here's how the late Jane Straus, author of "The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation," put the question in her blog: "Do you use a singular or plural verb to match a collective noun such as team or staff? The answer is, 'It depends.' If these nouns are acting as a unit, use a singular verb."

But if, she goes on to say, "the sentence indicates more individuality, use a plural verb." Her example: "The team are eating with their families tonight." And Word, I can tell you, isn't any happier with "team are" than with "staff come."

This principle gets pushback from humans, too. "I respectfully disagree," one commenter on Ms. Straus's blog wrote. But Straus invokes the redoubtable Chicago Manual, which says these collective nouns "may take either a singular or a plural verb form," and that "A singular verb emphasizes the group; a plural verb emphasizes the individual members."

But how does this play out in the real world? Variously, as a quick Google News search on "staff" shows.

"Rep. Issa tells Crowley: Cincinnati IRS staff say direction came from Washington" is part of the headline on a CNN blog post about the scandal over tax-exempt status for nonprofit groups. Note the plural verb. It suggests multiple sources, rather than a singular staff speaking as one; and that strengthens the congressman's point.

"Modesto pitching staff delivers stellar performance" was the headline on a recent story about minor-league baseball. Three pitchers came to the mound in succession, but they arguably acted as one to defeat the other team, hence a singular verb.

And from the News-Herald of Michigan: "Students get emotional in honoring staff who made a difference in their lives."

The "staff," one imagines, contributed individually, not unlike Darrell Issa's interlocutors at the Internal Revenue Service. But Word's grammar gnomes aren't buying it. They've green-lined "who." They see "staff" as a singular "it," not a plural "they."

And look what happens in the body of the piece: "At Roosevelt High School there's an event that encourages the school's brightest scholars to show their appreciation to staff members who have meant the most to them, and at times it can get quite emotional."

People may reach for this "members" construction when they want to indicate multiple actors but lose their nerve before the squiggly green line. It would be a shame, though, to give up on collective nouns with plural verbs just because the grammar bots don't handle nuance very well.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Collective nouns and the squiggly green line
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Verbal-Energy/2013/0613/Collective-nouns-and-the-squiggly-green-line
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe