Discussion
  • Read More
    FiendishThingyRobbie Gonzalez
    7/29/13 11:26am

    British English and American English often treat collective nouns differently. For example, Americans would say of a company - "Unilever is expanding in Europe," where a Brit might say, "Unilever are expanding in Europe."

    I wonder how much the establishment of an American English, separate fromBritish usage, influenced the treatment of "the United States."

    Reply
    • Read More
      dawnellFiendishThingy
      7/29/13 12:50pm

      The British do seem to say a few things differently. Like in America we say that someone is "in the hospital" while in Britain I've heard them say just "in hospital." But then in America I also hear "in church" more than "in the church" so it isn't a matter of us always adding a "the" that they think is unnecessary.

      Then there are people who say things that no one else seems to say. Like I know someone who says NASA spelled out N. A. S. A. It is distracting. I know that must have been how it was said originally, but everyone else long ago stopped saying it that way.

      As for "the United States" and "these United States" maybe it depends on which state the person lived in. Like maybe someone from the south would hang on to "these" for longer than in the north.

      Reply
    • Read More
      Nick R.FiendishThingy
      7/29/13 12:52pm

      For what it's worth, we didn't establish an "American English" the Brits were largely the ones that changed their format of speaking. We sounded the same until the Industrial Revolution hit England. America didn't start suddenly pronouncing Rs, England stopped. Here's an interesting article about it that I just learned about today(though it was published at the beginning of last year).

      Reply
  • Read More
    DrillpressRobbie Gonzalez
    7/29/13 11:23am

    How funny. I've always considered "United States" to be a collective noun, like a "coven of witches" or "treasury of autographed David Tennant photographs."

    Reply
    • Read More
      lightsabersedDrillpress
      7/29/13 11:27am

      Lol :D

      Reply
    • Read More
      DavidLomaxDrillpress
      7/29/13 12:46pm

      That only works in the form {noun} of {nouns}. So you'd have to try something like "a Conservatism of States," or "an Armory of States." Maybe "an Antagonism of States"?

      Reply
  • Read More
    LamarRobbie Gonzalez
    7/29/13 11:23am

    I remember one of the commentators in Ken Burns' "The Civil War" mentioning this as one of the social changes that occurred after the war.

    Is it just me, or does there seem to be a bit of an uptick in the use of "United States are" at the end of some of those graphs?

    Reply
    • Read More
      SilverboltLamar
      7/29/13 1:44pm

      That uptick is internet nerds who noticed this very thing and started grammar nazing about it. Nazing is now a verb too.

      Reply
    • Read More
      LamarSilverbolt
      7/29/13 2:45pm

      A living language is a wondrous thing.

      Reply
  • Read More
    Miguel Valdez LopezRobbie Gonzalez
    7/29/13 1:30pm

    I've always thought of the United States as a singular noun. A collective noun.

    Like "family" or "class" or "army".

    It's the proper name of a country, like Mexico, Canada, United Arab Emirates or the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the USSR), or New Zealand or Kiribati.

    The same ENGLISH grammar rules should cover it, right?

    Reply
    • Read More
      SilverboltMiguel Valdez Lopez
      7/29/13 1:54pm

      The correct PROPER names are United States of America, United Mexican States, and Republic of Kiribati, not United States or Mexico or Kiribati.

      Reply
    • Read More
      Miguel Valdez LopezSilverbolt
      7/29/13 2:37pm

      A new challenger appears!

      (glad to know you got the gist of my comment)

      Reply
  • Read More
    ShadowolfRobbie Gonzalez
    7/29/13 7:26pm

    It's entertaining that such a small change can draw such interest and discussion. Meanwhile, back on the street, the English we so admire for its mutability is being mutilated beyond recognition by the up and coming generation. Media has usurped the traditional means of transmitting language. Where once generational changes were assumed and eventually assimilated (Wow, look in the dictionary! It has 'ain't'!) it seems now that entertainment culture is spreading a new language base to this generation that has left the current generation behind scratching our heads.

    Reply
    • Read More
      dkasperShadowolf
      7/29/13 10:41pm

      It's kind of terrible that sanctimonious prescriptivism still exists. The word "ain't," for example, first appears in 1749, which, I should think, means that it counts as a word.

      Reply
    • Read More
      Shadowolfdkasper
      7/30/13 1:40am

      I'm old enough that I remember the first edition of a dictionary that actually had 'ain't' in it. It may have been in earlier editions but as a kid, constantly being told not to say 'ain't', it was a rebellious revelation that my slang was being recognized.

      I can imagine in 300 years when language evolution is revisited by our dependents and they track the stable evolution of English and they get to around 2000 on their graphs and there is a loud, "What the ...??? What happened here? The language looks like it was uploaded through a matter transporter with the angular magnetic restraint module disconnected!"

      Not that our descendants will actually be able to communicate. Not if they use what is left of the English language as a basis for the attempt. I am not being Sanctimoniously prescript ... whatever ... I just wish I knew what my grandkids were actually saying.

      Reply
  • Read More
    The Father of Modern LazinessRobbie Gonzalez
    7/29/13 12:37pm

    What happened in 1820?

    Reply
    • Read More
      Corpore MetalThe Father of Modern Laziness
      7/29/13 4:53pm

      My thinking this is an uptick in collective patriotism triggered by the War of 1812 and, perhaps, Jackson's genocidal forced relocation of Native Americans.

      Reply
  • Read More
    GibbelinsRobbie Gonzalez
    7/29/13 11:26am

    I wonder if certain influential politicians or journalists started consciously using the singular, and the rest of the country followed suit? I feel like there must have been some kind of driving force for such a dramatic shift like that. But it would be even cooler if it was completely spontaneous!

    I remember the quote from Ken Burns' "The Civil War," and it is so awesome to see it actually laid out as fact like this.

    Reply
    • Read More
      Michael WalshGibbelins
      7/29/13 2:25pm

      Read Gary Wills' book on the Gettysburg Address; he gives all the credit to Lincoln.

      Reply
    • Read More
      GibbelinsMichael Walsh
      7/29/13 2:31pm

      Interesting! Thanks!

      Reply
  • Read More
    PontifexRobbie Gonzalez
    7/29/13 1:04pm

    If I remember correctly, Sir Nicholas Cage made the same point in his historical documentary National Treasure: Book of Secrets.

    Reply
  • Read More
    FrankN.SteinRobbie Gonzalez
    7/29/13 1:04pm

    Your language are confusing at times.....

    GIF
    Reply
  • Read More
    Michael MunroRobbie Gonzalez
    7/29/13 1:32pm

    Seems to me that if the context is literally a discussion of the states that are united, you'd correctly use the plural, but that if you're talking about the country as a single unit, you'd conventionally use the singular.

    Reply