One small part of the cultural decline of Britain consists of the way in which newspapers now have sentences such as this: "Chelsea fall behind in title race".
This is the use of a verb in the plural with a singular noun. The sentence should read: "Chelsea falls behind in title race". There is only one Chelsea. The fact that it is a collective noun is irrelevant. It is still singular as any grammar book will confirm.
The use of plural verbs with singular nouns can - and is - defended as being one of those developments of the English language which naturally takes place over the years. Yes, indeed it is. Not many years ago, the Daily Express, of all papers still held out against it. But now I believe it has given way. Or, "Now they have given way" as many people would write these days.
But my view is that this is not simply a development of the English language that is arbitrary and means nothing. It is a change which reflects the failure of schools in Britain to teach much grammar for the past thirty years or so. That is why the change has taken place. It is a result of the inferior education which millions of people have experienced in recent decades. It is also an example of the way in which culture can travel from the least educated upwards as well as from the most educated down.
I am sure that all the top people in the BBC are well enough educated to know that it is bad grammar to write, "Charlton Athletic have announced that they have called off takeover talks with potential investors." (Link here.) But presumably they sanctioned the change. They felt that this was now common usage and that they should follow it, even though it was wrong. Thus has our written culture been formed by the least literate. Does any heroic newspaper still hold out against bad grammar?
I thought I might check out the Times of India. Yes, it has this sentence in the current online edition: "Arsenal has kicked ahead in the Premier League title race". Ah! Marvellous. A verb in the singular. What a relief. (Link here.) But unfortunately the headline for the same story is, "Arsenal make big move in Premier League title race." So the Times of India is not wholly holding the line against the poor grammar taking over the former 'mother country'.
How about The Times here in London. Does it cling to correct grammar? No. From today's online edition: "Arsenal have thrived while Chelsea are running run out of steam in the absence of Drogba". (Link here.)Dear, oh dear. It is a long way from the days when the advertisement used to read, "Top people take The Times".
I know that I have probably made a number of grammatical errors in writing this post. I know, too, that whenever someone writes about grammar, there is nothing more pleasurable than pointing out his or her grammatical failings. I have prepared myself to suffer such blows. It will be worth it for the pleasure of writing, as I have long wanted to, about this change - no, this deterioration - in the writing of English.
Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Education
Comments (2)
TrackBack (0)
Comments
The rot set in more than thirty years ago, in my personal opinion. I attended a grammar school in the first half of the 1970s, and the foreign-language teachers were reduced to referring to "doing words" and "describing words" because most of their GCE O Level students had not even been taught the names and functions of the basic 'seven parts of speech', despite the fact that they were also studying 'English Language' and 'English Literature' as two separate (compulsory) O Levels. No doubt this is why our schools today produce so many functional illiterates, as the teachers of today were not themselves correctly taught their grammar!
Posted by: Sylvia at March 5, 2008 12:21 PM
Warning: file(http://63.247.138.2/~bartholo/randomquotes.dump) [function.file]: failed to open stream: No route to host in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2008/02/there_is_only_o.php on line 297
Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Bad arguments. in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2008/02/there_is_only_o.php on line 297
Whilst I agree with you about the (col)lapse in the teaching of, and standards in, English grammar, I disagree on this matter. Referring to my team, I prefer "Newcastle are playing well" to "Newcastle is playing well". This is because I think of the team as a collection of 11 individuals. I think British English better reflects the reality, than do Indian, Japanese, or American newspapers. In fact, it is remarkable that a country like the US which emphasises individualism has adopted singular collectives. I think Fowler's Modern English Usage has quite a lot to say on this matter (and I'll read it again soon).
I would also be inclined to write "The committee were at loggerheads" rather than "The committee was at loggerheads".
Speaking of the BBC, what really irritates me is the use of less rather than fewer with countable nouns as in: "There are less cars on the M25 this bank holiday ... ". I would force offenders to listen to requests for "fewer music" or to make "fewer noise".
Finally, let me add that I would gladly take part in a brutal purge of the BBC, but not because of any of this, but because of 50+ years of ignoring the principle of balance and pushing socialism and statism.
Posted by: John Gibson at February 16, 2008 12:28 AM