Thread: The army were

The army were storing equipment
The army was storing equipment

My feeling is that "The army" may be singular but it represents a group of men, regiments, units, whatever and therefore either use is correct. What do you reckon?

It reminds me of something that irritates me mildly, when reading American journalists' reviews of sport or music. Seattle Seahawks has signed such and such a quarterback; Pearl Jam has released a new album. They write of teams and bands as a single entity, but in England we write of them as collectives; have signed a player, have released an album. I only think it irritates me because of the way I have become accustomed to reading and writing it.

Regarding your question on the army storing equipment. I think this case is unique. The army is different to an army. Could you use "the army were storing equipment" for the army in its widest sense, and then use "the army was storing equipment" if referring to, for example, the British Eighth Army who fought at El Alamein?

Or does that confuse the matter even further?

In general, USA writers treat it as singular ("the team is," "the audience was," etc), and British writers treat it as plural ("the team are," "the audience were," etc).

I was watching the British TV show, "Top Gear," and was surprised to hear one of the guys say, "Toyota are."

I wonder which rule Canadian writers follow … ? My guess is that in this case their practice corresponds with writers from the USA, even though they do spell "offense and defense" as "offence and defence," British style.

The army is, the armies are - Singular army.

The army was used as a singular group. The plural for a single army is armies.

The army was storing equipment.

We'd studied it in grammar at school; it represents a group of men but it's being talked about as a single entity.

'Army' is a noun which is treated as both singular and plural. The Americans tend to refer to collective teams and groups as singular, and therefore use 'was'. In the U.K. we refer to them as being a plural entity and use 'were'.

Bilston Blue has it spot on. You will never see an U.K. journalist refer to Manchester United as a single entity. "Manchester United have made a bid for Lionel Messi". Not "Manchester United has made a bid for Lionel Messi".

In your case, Olly, the word you want is were.

*sigh* Go figure. We're taught British English in schools over here, but our grammar books also taught us to write the army was​...

By the way, if it's the British Army you're referring to, it's capitalised. If it's just an army created by a couple of people, it isn't.

The Royal Marines, British Army, Royal Navy, U.S. Marines, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, U.S. Coastguard -- all proper nouns.

Thanks folks, a measure of how much the American usage has infiltrated that a man of my generation should question it.

A thought, I would say "The police are at the door". I can imagine an American saying "The police is at the door", but I bet it would attract criticism if it were written rather than oral, even from Americans.

It would be correct to say that the police are at the door, if there are multiple police at the door. Otherwise you'd say there is a policeman (or a policewoman) at the door.

Police is different than army, because army has a singular and a plural form (army, armies). Police, on the other hand, is only a plural form. The only way to make it singular would be to say police man, police officer, or police force (yes, that last one is singular, because it is only one group).

I do not think it is in any way correct to say that the police is at the door.

Originally Posted by Olly Buckle

I would say "The police are at the door".

So what have you been up to now, to attract their attention?

And would an Englishman not say, “Old Bill is at the door”? it’s just another name for "the police", after all.

Police, on the other hand, is only a plural form.

I disagree, hence the use of "The" police, very singular. Some nouns have more than one plural form, for example "I have been shooting duck" and "He spotted several species of ducks". It's usually in the game context, similar things could be said about fish or deer. The plural of policeman is policemen "There is a policeman at the door", "There are policemen at the door".

I might start a new thread regarding different than/different from.

And would an Englishman not say, “Old Bill is at the door”? it’s just another name for "the police", after all.

slang so it would get used verbally and take the form "Old Bill's at the door" where the plural and singular are indistinguishable.

I might start a new thread regarding different than/different from.

They're both wrong - it's different to

Originally Posted by Olly Buckle

The army were storing equipment
The army was storing equipment

My feeling is that "The army" may be singular but it represents a group of men, regiments, units, whatever and therefore either use is correct. What do you reckon?

I'd say either were acceptable, depending on which you had in mind. Either the army as a single entity, or a composite consisting as all sections.