I am myself to me, not to others....

[ardcarp]

Oh dear, this has turned the (pedants') corner. But (if I'm allowed to start a sentence with 'but') I do not buy this argument, Jean:

Did you have any difficulty in understanding what they meant?

It is used to excuse all manner of aberrations of the language we choose to speak. Whilst I accept that language evolves and that words and usages change their meaning over time, the bare minimum requirement to 'make oneself understood' is hardly enough. I can make myself understood to the point of buying a cornetto (just one) in Italy, but I hardly speak Italian. I fear we shall regress to 'Me Tarzan, you Jane' [Me Ardcarp, you Jean?] if no attempt is made to respect the integrity of the mother tongue. I suspect that in your heart of hearts you prefer not to hear English mauled, any more than the classics!

[LeMartinPecheur]

Another one I'm never quite sure about is: "My favourite band is, or are, playing in my local tonight"?

Dave2002's answer is absolutely correct for this particular sentence, but there is I think a further linguistic subtlety. The use of the singular verb implies that the band is acting as one. If one wants to say that the band's playing was poorly co-ordinated this can be reinforced by a plural verb: "The band were all over the place in tuning and attack." Certainly not compulsory, but permissible I believe.

Similarly, "On the rest day the England team was to be seen visiting an old people's home."/ "On the rest day the England team were to be seen at a variety of tourist attractions all over town."

[french frank]

If one wants to say that the band's playing was poorly co-ordinated this can be reinforced by a plural verb

"The government is split,"
"The government are united."

[LeMartinPecheur]

"The government is split,"
"The government are united."

Might fit this government quite well: divided even when acting together?

Putting on my best (though still not very good) pedant's hat, "The government is split" is clearly unexceptionable, though "The government are split" is also permissible as per my #32.

On the same basis "The government are united" ought to sound wrong-er than I feel it does. Does it perhaps subtly imply that this 'uniting' has been a recent event, that there has been a period of disunity in the not-so-distant past?

[Pabmusic]

Dave2002's answer is absolutely correct for this particular sentence, but there is I think a further linguistic subtlety. The use of the singular verb implies that the band is acting as one. If one wants to say that the band's playing was poorly co-ordinated this can be reinforced by a plural verb: "The band were all over the place in tuning and attack." Certainly not compulsory, but permissible I believe.

Similarly, "On the rest day the England team was to be seen visiting an old people's home."/ "On the rest day the England team were to be seen at a variety of tourist attractions all over town."

Agreed. The use of the plural verb in these circumstances is idiomatic and quite old. I suppose you could often regard it as a contraction of something like "the team [members] were to be seen..." In fact, mentally inserting something like that can help to decide whether the idiom is appropriate in any particular circumstances.

[LeMartinPecheur]

Further to #32 and #34, Partridge's Usage and Abusage - A Guide to Good English affirms the 'rule' I've proposed above in the entry on 'Collective Nouns: when singular and when plural', and gives a number of examples, including "Parliament rises at the beginning of August"/ "Parliament differ over the question of war". (Actually, I don't much like that last one - sounds wrong to me. Much better "MPs..." in place of "Parliament...". Maybe things have moved on since Partridge wrote in 1965?).

Partridge states that the plural verb 'is justified when the idea of plurality is predominant'. Two examples from classic authors: "As the clergy are or are not what they ought to be, so are the rest of the nation" (Jane Austen) and "The club all know that he is a disappointed man" (De Quincey).

[ahinton]

What about the use of plurals to refer to organisations? E.g "I had a letter from my bank yesterday. They asked me to reduce my overdraft immediately."

This seems style very common nowadays, and of course conflates several errors. Banks do not normally write letters, though nowadays neither do people, such as bank managers. Should we instead write "I had a letter from my bank's computer today. It asked me to reduce my overdraft."?

I take your point but am nevertheless not so sure, actually; the bank's computer would not have generated such a letter unless some human bank employee had allowed or instructed it to do so, directly or indirectly. That said, yes, the bank is a singular organisation (in more senses than one!) and so "it" rather than" they" would appear to be not merely correct but arguably also, in the increasingly impersonal modus operandi of such organisations, more appropriate.

It all reminds me, however, of that old chestnut "which is correct - eight and eight is fifteen or eight and eight are fifteen?", to which the smug answer is probably "neither, because eight and eight is or are still just eight and eight until it or they are added together" (i.e. it should read "eight plus eight").

I'm wondering now if a mere pedants' corner is sufficiently large to accommodate the sheer quantity of pedantry that abounds...

[french frank]

I have no difficulty with singlur collective nouns sometimes being treated as plurals (even in dave2002's exmple), sometimes as a singulars. Getting back to the original 'himself' example, I do still raise an eyebrow at the invention of the new form 'themself', where 'them/they' has been used as a gender non-specific singular, making 'themselves' look doubly peculiar. ('If anyone doesn't like the way it's being done, they can always do it themself.')

[Padraig]

Getting back to the original 'himself' example, I do still raise an eyebrow at the invention of the new form 'themself', where 'them/they' has been used as a gender non-specific singular, making 'themselves' look doubly peculiar. ('If anyone doesn't like the way it's being done, they can always do it themself.')

I haven't heard that new variety myself, ff.

Do it themself/do it themselves? I know which one I would go for.

But, the argument won't go away you know. After all, we have sinn fein (ourselves).

Oh! Suit yourself.

[french frank]

Oh! Suit yourself.

Yourselves, please!

[Padraig]

Yourselves, please!

That would be - sibh fein le do thoil.

And for a reward, have a read of this:

http://breis.focloir.ie/en/fgb/toil

[mangerton]

The mention of a bank computer and human intervention reminds me of this story, which I understand to be true and not apocryphal.

An employee in a bank's investment dept was instructed to prepare a draft letter aimed at the bank's well-off customers, offering them investment advice. The draft was duly written, but for some reason was sent without proper checking.

It began, "Dear Rich B*****d".

[jean]

I I do still raise an eyebrow at the invention of the new form 'themself', where 'them/they' has been used as a gender non-specific singular, making 'themselves' look doubly peculiar. ('If anyone doesn't like the way it's being done, they can always do it themself.')

Themself is found as a plural form very early; it shouldn't be too hard to get used to it again as more appropriate when them is being used as a (non-gender-specific) singular.

1382 Bible (Wycliffite, E.V.) (Douce 369(1)) (1850) Ecclus. xxv. 2 The looue of neȝhebores, and man and womman wel to themself consentende.

1733 J. Byrom Serious Disswasive Races Kersal Moore (ed. 3) 8 They..by being left to themself, are liable to all the Calamities that can befall them.

[Dave2002]

"The government is split,"
"The government are united."

Isn't the second form strictly incorrect?

[ahinton]

The mention of a bank computer and human intervention reminds me of this story, which I understand to be true and not apocryphal.

An employee in a bank's investment dept was instructed to prepare a draft letter aimed at the bank's well-off customers, offering them investment advice. The draft was duly written, but for some reason was sent without proper checking.

It began, "Dear Rich B*****d".

If it was true, I'd hope that at least one recipient might have written back (enclsing a copy of the bank's letter) pointing out that his forename isn't "Rich".