Thread: The army were

The way I see it:

If storing equipment is being done by the army, then the army is storing equipment.

The army is singular, so I'd treat it as such. "The army was storing equipment."

The men of the army are not the subject of the sentence. The army itself is.

The army <-- Subject. Noun. Singular.

Just because an army is comprised of men, that doesn't make the army plural.

Just like a building contains men, but that doesn't make the building plural.

"The building were," would be incorrect.

"The army were," looks to be equally incorrect. At least, to me.



"The soldiers were storing equipment."

"The army was defenseless."

"Members of the army were storing equipment."



EDIT: I'm left wondering, do the rules of grammar vary between America and the UK? If so, then please disregard my post My understanding is limited to American English.

Originally Posted by KyleColorado

Just because an army is comprised of men, that doesn't make the army plural.

Just like a building contains men, but that doesn't make the building plural.

Your logic is flawed. The words "comprised of" and "contains" are in no way even remotely similar. Sorry.

"A building is comprised of bricks," then.

Either way, "the building" isn't plural.

No, but 'army' is both singular and plural, so either works.

I've always been taught that if a collective noun refers to the whole, then it's singular. "The army was" in this case, because you're not referring to the soldiers, but to the whole organization. If, however, you're looking at individuals within that group, it's different. A good example is "team" - "The team moved into its new quarters." - thus the whole team did this. However, "The team showered, changed into their street clothes, and headed to their air-conditioned homes." refers to the individual members of the group.

Originally Posted by Sam W

No, but 'army' is both singular and plural, so either works.

Are you sure about that?

I've always believed "army" to singular, and "armies" to be plural.

If "army" is plural, then this sentence would be correct, no? --> "The two army fought against each other."

This thread has me very confused.

It seems to me that 'army' is a very good example of what are called collective nouns. Collective nouns work pretty much the same as the regular 'count' nouns; they have plural forms and can be modified by numbers and indefinite articles. Collective nouns can probably be considered a sub-species of count nouns. Probably the epitome of collective nouns is the noun 'group.' Collective nouns are usually in no way 'mass' nouns. (Water, for a mass noun example, although sometimes used in plural in very specialized instances generally has no plural or, alternatively, is both singular and plural; when used as a mass noun, number really doesn't enter into it; outside the restaurant there's usually no 'a' water.) It's an inexplicable idiosyncrasy of the grammar that in British English, the singular form of many collective nouns is often (generally even) used with the plural verb form. As with many things grammatical in English, there's considerable fuzziness around the edges of these distinctions and usages, and attempts at succinct explication tend to be rife with unresolved quandary.

Thanks for that, ppsage!

I looked it up, and you're right.

The usage of collective nouns varies between American English and British English, due to a metonymic shift.

"The army were" would be incorrect in American English. But in British English, it's perfectly acceptable. Consider me enlightened (until today I assumed American English and British English were the same!).

In British English, it is generally accepted that collective nouns can take either singular or plural verb forms depending on the context and the metonymic shift that it implies. For example, "the team is in the dressing room" (formal agreement) refers to the team as an ensemble, whilst "the team are fighting among themselves" (notional agreement) refers to the team as individuals. This is also British English practice with names of countries and cities in sports contexts; for example, "Germany have won the competition.", "Madrid have lost three consecutive matches.", etc. In American English, collective nouns almost invariably take singular verb forms (formal agreement). In cases where a metonymic shift would be otherwise revealed nearby, the whole sentence may be recast to avoid the metonymy. (For example, "The team are fighting among themselves" may become "the team members are fighting among themselves" or simply "The team is fighting.")

(Collective noun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Yep, that's what I was getting at. We say "The team are on their way to the stadium". The Yanks say "The team is on its way to the stadium". Collective nouns in English (British) are treated as plural. Ergo, "the Army were storing equipment".

Originally Posted by Sam W

Yep, that's what I was getting at. We say "The team are on their way to the stadium". The Yanks say "The team is on its way to the stadium". Collective nouns in English (British) are treated as plural. Ergo, "the Army were storing equipment".

Treated as plural for the purposes of verb conjugation only. In British English, predicate verbs following a subject formed from the singular form of a collective noun are conjugated in the same way as with the plural form of that noun. However, in British English, both plural and singular forms of collective nouns still exist with the ordinary difference in meaning: 'army' means something different than 'armies.'

Thanks guys, as you might tell from the title I originally favoured "Were". Reading through this I guess one could get away with either, it would be interesting to know how much dialogue in places like this contributes to a reconvergence of our language(s), The 'rules' are a useful guide when writing, but grammar is the study of the mutually understood and used forms, and therefore mutable.

Thank you again everyone, most interesting results from a small puzzle.