Jun 19th, 2010
Grammar seldom enters into our discussions at JakesTakeOnSports, because, quite frankly, we ain’t got no reason to be complaining of the inference of the way our words we makes use of. If you catch my drift.
England are hopeless
However, the World Cup provided a nice reminder of subject-verb agreement, a literary formality my former employer, the San Francisco Chronicle (hereafter to be called PPP, past paycheck provider), has chosen to ignore when it comes to Stanford sports.
Here’s the reminder via the biggest sporting event in the world: “England are not ready to play.” “England were lucky to get a draw.” “England make problems for themselves.” “England think they are two countries.”
Please understand, we can accept errors such as double negatives from the Rolling Stones. (Click here for a grammar lesson from Mick Jagger, circa Dark Ages.)
But in sports? No way.
The English media – newspapers and television commentators – use a plural verb when talking about the team representing England. We know. We know. They are talking about the many individuals that make up the team, but when you hear it, you know it’s wrong, even with that persuasive English accent. And when you see it in a headline – “England Tie U.S.” — it’s fingernails on a chalkboard to a journalist.
It suggests there are two Englands. Oh, you can talk about the England of the 19th century being a completely different country from England of the 21st century, but that’s just conversational usage. There is only one England. As far as we know over her across the pond.
Of course, that does not address that whole British Isles-United Kingdom-Great Britain-England issue that is so confounding to Americans. You could make a pretty good case that, technically, England is not a country at all, and that England having a soccer team in the World Cup is sort of like Nebraska having a team in the World Cup.
We digress.
The “England Tie U.S.” headline reminded us of the way the PPP uses Stanford’s nickname.
Two months ago, a PPP article on Stanford football went like this: “ . . . In the post-Toby Gerhart era the Cardinal are expected . . .” That came just a few days after a women’s basketball story that read “ . . . the Cardinal have every reason to feel fortunate. . . “
The Cardinal are? The Cardinal have?
You can say it with an English accent and it doesn’t sound any better.
The Cardinal is singular, and there is no reasonable debate on the subject. “The Cardinal IS expected . . .” and “the Cardinal HAS every reason . . .”
Virtually every American media service considers Cardinal a singular noun without a second thought. But not the PPP.
Everytime we wrote about Stanford when we were at the PPP, we had to close our eyes, grit out teeth, apologize to our fourth-grade English teacher (God rest her soul) and type “The Cardinal are . . .” Of course, you do everything you can to avoid the issue, perhaps writing “The Cardinal players are . . .” or putting the sentence in the past or future tense by saying “The Cardinal had a problem . . .” or “The Cardinal will have a problem . . .” so Cardinal can have the same verb whether it be considered singular or plural.”
Sometimes it cannot be avoided, though, and the copy editor back in the office is obligated to change your “the Cardinal is” to “the Cardinal are” if he knows what’s good for him.
This is not some fine line, like whether the word “everybody” should be singular or plural. This is simple English grammar that any third-grader could identify in a second. Every time we write “the Cardinal are . . .” our laptop jumps in and underlines the verb to tell us something is terribly wrong here.
Tell it to the PPP. Tell it to jolly old England.
We are waiting for that classic headline “Cardinal Tie England, and England Are Vexed.”
I never would have guessed USA would end up leading group C