COLLECTIVE NOUNS
COLLECTIVE NOUNS
Let’s take up a collection…of collective nouns! Remember that term from school? Those are the nouns that imply a plural concept even though they are functionally, grammatically singular.
Example: if the household cook announces, “The food is on the table,” do you really expect to walk into the kitchen and see a single pea lying on the table? No. You expect to see a bowlful of them, and perhaps a bowl of potatoes, and a platter of meat. You anticipate a plural concept. However, the cook said, “food is,” not “food are,” thus “food” is a collective noun.
Another example: whoever just went to the bank might say, “The money is on the table.” Again, you don’t expect to see a single dime lying there by itself. You expect multiple items, but you still don’t say, “money are.” Therefore, “money” is a collective noun.
Likewise, “family.” One says “family is” not “family are,” even though we clearly mean more than one individual when we use the word “family.”
So why am I making a big deal of this? Because lately, some of the collective nouns are being abused in an outrageous, disturbing way. Some of them are beginning to have an “are” after them instead of an “is.” I’m seeing it in novels, and even in, of all things, the Reader’s Digest, which should certainly know better than that.
Which collective nouns? “Couple” and “crew.”
Of course “couple” implies two people, but that doesn’t stop it from being a collective noun. One should say, “The couple is honeymooning,” not “couple are.” However, that is the error that is lately cropping up in Reader’s Digest.
Naturally “crew” refers to a collection of people, but one must still say, “The crew is on shore leave,” not “crew are.” Even so, I’m seeing that awkward-sounding error in Star Trek novels, and only recently.
Please, can we nip this one in the bud, before it becomes an epidemic???
