Hot answers tagged collective-nouns
These company names are collective nouns. In general, in American English collective nouns almost always trigger singular verb agreement (after all, "Microsoft" is grammatically a singular noun, even if semantically it denotes an entity made up of many people). It is apparently much more common to use plural verb agreement in British English. It doesn't have ...
After looking at wikipedia entries for castles and fortifications, I can see that there are many technical historical-architectural terms which are very precise and detailed. 1st option The encompassing term might be fortifications. This is technically probably a bit wide as it would include military constructs which people do not inhabit and might ...
British English treats collective nouns (corporations, departments, etc.) as plural. American English treats them as singular. The size of the group is irrelevant.
Americophile (plural Americophiles) a lover of the United States and/or their way of life Admittedly it's only Wiktionary, but Americophile follows the general rule for constructing such words (i.e., Latinish/Greekish-sounding root ending in "o" + "phile"), produces about 9000 results on Google, and has a reasonably pleasant ring to it. If ...
If you have interest in this subject, James Lipton's An Exaltation of Larks is the chief reference work. What you'll learn is that there are usually two (and sometimes three) group nouns for animals and birds. There will be a term of venery of a classical nature, often coined by hunters or gamekeepers (a murder of crows, an unkindness of ravens, a ...
Intelligentsia. A word of Russian origin (интеллигенция,intelligyentsia), imported into English in 1905, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary . It might be a little outmoded now. Of course you might invent words like punditorat ...
Using fellow in conjunction with the field or occupation is common, as in Walker and his fellow governors. The first single word that springs to mind is peers, indicating people of equal standing, i.e. similar responsibilities and status. To indicate direct analogues/equivalents you could use counterparts, for example if you are benefits officer for Company ...
I'd call this a jetty myself. Pier isn't wrong, but tends to imply a more magnificent structure than that shown.
I've never heard "USAer" (I live in the northeastern United States), nor seen it in writing. As simchona says, its meaning is fairly clear. It would be especially awkward to pronounce, as the speaker would have to pause between "A" and "ers" to make themselves clear. A variant I have seen slightly more often is "USian", although this is again fairly rare, ...
In English, or at least in the US, we normally group students by the year of graduation rather than the year of entrance. We would say you're part of the "Class of 2010." If we need to group by year of entrance, we would probably say you're part of the "Freshman Class of 2006."
For what it's worth, if there's an official word for a collection of fires, it isn't in this list. That said, I seem to remember hearing the term rash of fires more than once. That phrase appears more than 400 times in published books, and a Google search for the exact term (in quotation marks) returns over 100,000 results, many of which are news ...
Lineage comes to mind (as did Line but I prefer lineage) lineal descent from an ancestor; ancestry or extraction: She could trace her lineage to the early Pilgrims. the line of descendants of a particular ancestor; family; race. Since there is some discussion about whether or not the person itself belongs to the lineage, I offer this ngram of ...
Can't find a dictionary word but these neologisms should all be understandable: Philamerican, á la philhellene. Americanophile, while this does not seem to have a dictionary entry, it does appear in print a few times.
I think it is most people's tendency to infer the people at the company as those doing the action described ("bending the rules") and therefore the plural sounds correct when that is the message you are trying to put across. When it is the company as a single corporate entity, the singular works better ("Microsoft has bought Acme Widgets", "Acme has a great ...
I very much doubt you there is a definitive answer for this. Collective nouns became popular in the 14th and 15th century. There are exhaustive lists. I suspect people considered it more artful and "proper", back in the day. Animals in groups behave differently; the collective noun often hints at the behavior, formation or character of the group.
Sometimes the collective noun gives you additional meaning or maybe some poetic beauty. But most of the time it doesn't really add much. Most people will understand the phrase "A flock of crows" completely and some people won't even know that they could say "a murder of crows". Then there's the connotation of the word "murder" which you may not even want. ...
The word used for this within educational circles, in Britain at least, is cohort. A cohort of students usually means a group of students in the same year on the same course, but could also be extended to wider groups such as all the students studying a course regardless of year, or all students in a single year group.
These tend to be referred to as historic buildings or sometimes the broader term ancient monuments. Of course those terms aren't precisely what you're looking for, since both terms can include buildings not on your list - an ancient barn, full of history, could be counted as an historic building or ancient monument - and equally if a palace was built right ...
Does "Stately homes and castles" cover it? Or even just "Stately homes"?
I'm English (brought up near Oxford), and usually use the plural. For example, I used to work with an organisation called the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and I was accustomed to writing “the IFS are”, not “the IFS is”. Or, speaking of local politics: “Oxford City Council do not build enough council houses”, rather than “Oxford City Council does not build ...
Much. Feces cannot be counted individually, so it is used with much. Many is only used with countable nouns.
USAer is not a day-to-day English word. On an Ngram of recent use, the graph looks like this: However, this is not to say that the term is not understandable. The neologism is the result of adding the common suffix -er to create a noun. For example, one who swims is a swimmer. One who is part of the USA could be a USAer. You could say UAEer. Note that ...
I don't know if there's some technical term used by meteorologists, but I think I'd instinctively say a "group" of clouds unless something more poetic was called for. Remember it is OK to use plain, easily understood words when the fancy ones don't buy you anything. This reminds me of the pointless list of rarely used collective nouns for animals that some ...
How about castles-etc.? It strikes me as unambiguous and simple.
I suspect that since there is apparently no dictionary entry for the word you're asking for, the very concept is nonexistent, or, a fable. The best you will probably find is something that could originate from Mao's Little Red Book: "Running dog of the Imperialist US Lackeys" I'm sure Stephen Colbert would heartily concur. Edited to add: @FumbleFingers ...
The common plural of person is people. Persons may be common in legalese, but it is very uncommon in day-to-day speech. One normally counts, "one person, two people, three people," etc. When using the word people in this way, the word is not a collective noun, it is a simple plural. But people is both a plural and a collective -- you can say "two people", ...
I'd say it depends what kind of clouds they are (wispy, thick, black etc.) and what they are doing (moving slowly/quickly, thinning, thickening etc.). One possible collective term is a "scud" of clouds - meaning fast-moving, loose, vapoury clouds. I'm sure many more exist - I will edit if I think of them.
In England I would probably use the word boffins. Our crack team of boffins laboured through the night decoding enemy transmissions.
Apparently the original source from which most of these names came is the Book of St. Albans, originally published around 1480. Wikipedia states that: A modern collection is James Lipton, An Exaltation of Larks, Penguin Books, 1968, ISBN 0-670-30044-6.
I would avoid this construction altogether and go for something like How much fecal matter does a human produce in one year? Indeed, many feces is incorrect, as feces are uncountable. Much feces is also quite incorrect (and sounds awkward, too), as feces is plural by default. Not all uncountable nouns go with much. For instance, scissors is a plural ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible