Stop! Grammar Time

[John Picard]

It should be plural, as in "The United States are" not "The United States is".

In fact, before the U.S. Civil War, that's how the country was referred to, as a plural, because it was a collection of several sovereign states, not a centralized nation.

Yepper. I just finished watching the Ken Burns, The Civil War mini series where consultant/author Shelby Foote makes that exact statement.

Which is why I think context is important. We're hardly in the middle of the Civil War right now. While there can be some pretty distinct differences between states these days, we are one singular nation. It really depends on the emphasis your trying to place. If I'm talking about the country as a whole, "The United States" is the name of that one country, and I would treat it as a singular noun.

But I could also see instances where it would be more appropriate to treat it as plural.

Before the Civil War, it was "The United States are...". After the Civil War, it became "The United States is...". Being in the middle of a (Civil) war has nothing to do with context

Try to keep up.

 

[RoJoHen]

I'm beginning to think you're very bipolar. Sometimes you're helpful. Other times you're just plain rude.

 

[Shazam!]

Especially when you say “Period” while miming “Air quotes”.

You don't say “Period” while miming air quotes. You say “Quote (sentence) - Unquote.”

I though it was "quote unquote (sentence)"?

And technically, this is about punctuation, not grammar.

Grammar is not a synonym for “correct use of language.

A system of rules and principles for speaking and writing a language

: |

 

[John Picard]

I'm beginning to think you're very bipolar. Sometimes you're helpful. Other times you're just plain rude.

I'm helpful until someone wants to ignore what's been plainly laid out and continues along with a preconceived belief.

 

[Gryffindorian]

You say "period" or "quote-unquote" in a sentence, but it's more for emphasis. This has no reflection on how you punctuate the sentence in writing.

Examples:

(Read Aloud)

No, I'm not going to the party. Period.
He's what I would call, quote-unquote, a textbook narcissist.

(Written)

No, I'm not going to the party.
He's what I would call a "texbook narcissist."

 

[greenguy]

The entire USA thing is whether or not the linguistic centers of your brain and then any applicable contextual maxims are treating the United States as a single entity or group of entities. This can vary depending on personal context, but it is much more uniform today in favor of the former. Most of the time the referent is the larger, single entity; if discussing foreign policy, for example, this is not the foreign policy of many entities (multiple states), but rather, just one.

 

[John Picard]

The entire USA thing is whether or not the linguistic centers of your brain and then any applicable contextual maxims are treating the United States as a single entity or group of entities. This can vary depending on personal context, but it is much more uniform today in favor of the former. Most of the time the referent is the larger, single entity; if discussing foreign policy, for example, this is not the foreign policy of many entities (multiple states), but rather, just one.

After reading that bit of high level and highly superfluous writing, I would like whatever it is that you are drinking

 

[Canadave]

Well, I don't know what to tell ya.

Do you say "The Netherlands is in a country in Europe" too?
I'm not disparaging the USA's nationhood or anything, it's just that gramatically it seems inconsistant to me when the country's name clearly indicates a plural.

I honestly don't talk about the Netherlands much , but I think I would say "is" there as well. Not sure why.

I think I would use "is" as well. In fact, I don't think I'd ever use "are" when referring to a country, because that, to me, would sound very awkward with "a country." So... "Trinidad and Tobago is a country," rather than "Trinidad and Tobago are a country." The "are" just confuses things, IMO.

 

[cultcross]

I though it was "quote unquote (sentence)"?

That's the most used form, verbally at least, but if you think about it, it makes no sense - you're 'unquoting' before you've actually said the quote. It should logically be "quote <sentence> unquote", like a quote tag on a message board.


And yes, Roger, I'd say 'is' for the Netherlands, but then most Britons would refer to it casually as 'Holland'
It would have to be more than one country to get an 'are' - eg 'the Balkan states are block voting'.

 

[opali]

Yepper. I just finished watching the Ken Burns, The Civil War mini series where consultant/author Shelby Foote makes that exact statement.

Which is why I think context is important. We're hardly in the middle of the Civil War right now. While there can be some pretty distinct differences between states these days, we are one singular nation. It really depends on the emphasis your trying to place. If I'm talking about the country as a whole, "The United States" is the name of that one country, and I would treat it as a singular noun.

But I could also see instances where it would be more appropriate to treat it as plural.

Before the Civil War, it was "The United States are...". After the Civil War, it became "The United States is...". Being in the middle of a (Civil) war has nothing to do with context

Try to keep up.

Somebody needs a nap.
RoJoHen was keeping up just fine, and he had an apt reply. You simply decided to take a cheap shot.

 

[scotpens]

Before the Civil War, it was "The United States are...". After the Civil War, it became "The United States is...". Being in the middle of a (Civil) war has nothing to do with context

Even after the Civil War, roughly up until World War I, it was common to refer to the country as "THESE United States." The only time the average American dealt with the federal government on a regular basis was when the mail was delivered. Most other government functions were handled at the state and local levels.

Speaking of plurals and singulars, have you noticed how the British use plural verbs for collective entities? "The Conservative Party were soundly defeated." "Ford have announced their new models." We Yanks, of course, use singular verbs in those instances. Even if the collective subject is plural in form, it still takes a singular verb: "United Artists presents a Joe Blow production." "General Motors is laying off more workers."

British writers and actors always screw that up when they try to sound American, and vice versa.

 

[Trekker4747]

Most of this thread reads like a telegram.

 

[Canadave]

Most of this thread reads like a telegram.

AM FORCED TO DISAGREE STOP WIRES MUCH SHORTER GO STRAIGHT TO POINT STOP HOWEVER WOULD APPROVE OF FURTHER COMMUNICATION IN SUCH A MANNER STOP PLEASE INDICATE YOUR RESPONSE END

 

[Cicero]

Before the Civil War, it was "The United States are...". After the Civil War, it became "The United States is...". Being in the middle of a (Civil) war has nothing to do with context

Even after the Civil War, roughly up until World War I, it was common to refer to the country as "THESE United States."

Indeed. The transition from plural and to singular was only partly related to the Civil War (for instance, the Thirteenth Amendment, prepared near the war's end, still treats the phrase as plural: "the United States are"). In general, American English trended toward singular forms of initially plural nouns over the course of the Nineteenth Century - the Constitution, for instance, treats the House of Representatives, the Congress, and the Senate as plural, not singular entities, but that usage had all but disappeared by the time Andrew Jackson became president. We weren't fully a singular nation in English until the very late 1800s (or 1902, if one considers an act of Congress necessary). This article gives further, though still cursory, explanation.

I'd suggest that the technological changes that improved mobility in the postwar era probably had a greater effect on ideas of national unity than did the Civil War. As Americans began to move between states with some frequency - both on permanent bases and as travelers, it would have been natural to come to think of the United States, rather than the particular states, as the national unit. Further, the protection, aid, and regulation provided by the federal government to the rapidly-expanding West (and, eventually, to the immigrants who filled the Northeast) would have promoted the idea of the United States as a singular concept - plural entities encountered mostly through their actions usually tend to become singular in American English, and the government of the country wouldn't likely be an exception.

 

[scotpens]

Most of this thread reads like a telegram.

What's a telegram?

 

[Trekker4747]

Most of this thread reads like a telegram.

What's a telegram?

A very small TV.

 

[TorontoTrekker]

Well, no, because you don't pronounce punctuation. "Period" is just another word in the sentence.

Actually, you could pronounce the punctuation. The sentence would then become:

Shazam (fzzz-*pop*!) is a complete bellend (*pop*).

(Victor Borge fans will understand what I mean.)