Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.duke.edu!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.netins.net!internet.spss.com!markrose
From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Subject: Re: Singular vs. plural concord with collective nouns
Message-ID: <D7r9J8.Kxt@spss.com>
Sender: news@spss.com
Organization: SPSS Inc
References: <1995Apr26.145001@matai.vuw.ac.nz>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 17:21:07 GMT
Lines: 24

In article <1995Apr26.145001@matai.vuw.ac.nz>,
 <sigleyr@matai.vuw.ac.nz> wrote:
>Some time ago, IN%"fzhaught@bullwinkle.ucdavis.edu" wrote:
>>Everyone knows that the British use the plural form of the verb with cor-
>>porate bodies (as in "the government were concerned . . ." as opposed to 
>>the American "the government was concerned . . ."
>[...]
>With one exception: in highly formal official documents ONLY, British English
>prefers plural concord with _government_. As you can see, there is a huge
>difference in concordance pattern between the texts of section H (miscellaneous
>government documents, incl. acts), and the texts elsewhere in that corpus. 
>
>This data is from 1961, so this highly conservative pattern may no longer occur
>in British English even in that limited genre. Certainly, there's little sign
>of it continuing in 1986 NZ English - which otherwise closely follows the
>British model.

This usage is by no means limited to "highly formal official documents"
in Britain.  I found many instances in a British tabloid from 1985, for
instance on the sports page ("Liverpool are Winners Again") and in ads
("Wimpy are..." [I forget the rest of the sentence]).  Some may also 
remember the slogans offered by the pop group Frankie Goes to Hollywood,
e.g. "Frankie say Relax, don't do it".  Perhaps a British reader can
provide more up-to-date information.
