0

I work for a company who, for sake of argument, are called Scottish Chickens.

When writing to our customers, should we write that "Scottish Chickens is planning to carry out work to improve the situation." OR should we write that "Scottish Chickens are planning to carry out work to improve the situation?

I prefer the latter but would appreciate your view on this.

Regards, GRL

GRL
  • 1
  • Since Scottish Chickens is a single company, 'is' is grammatically correct. However, even BBC announcers often say , "The government have announced ...", so it all depends whether you want to go with modern usage or keep to tradition grammar. – David Garner Jul 01 '15 at 14:28
  • Welcome to the site GRL! Don't worry about wishing us 'Regards' - just asking the question is fine! – EleventhDoctor Jul 01 '15 at 14:50
  • @David Garner If you are metonymically referencing 'the people at Scottish Chickens', which seems more sensible here, notional concord (which is not ungrammatical) indicates the choice of 'are' here. Modern usage is divided. But 'tradition grammar' seems not to be favoured. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 01 '15 at 22:33
  • @EdwinAshworth, I hadn't thought of it that way. So when I read that "Scottish Chickens have opened a new plant", it's saying "The people at Scottish Chickens have opened a new plant." I can stop wincing at BBC announcers, thanks. – David Garner Jul 02 '15 at 10:35
  • 1
    @David Garner "Scottish Chickens have opened a new plant" obviously needs rephrasing for other reasons, especially when the capital C is not obvious (in speech). But there are articles on ELU covering the use of notional rather than 'grammatical' (they're both equally acceptable) concord, with both coordinated subjects ('bacon and eggs is my favourite meal') and collective nouns regarded as composite rather than unitary ('the team was founded in 1878', but 'the team were fighting amongst themselves'). – Edwin Ashworth Jul 02 '15 at 10:49

1 Answers1

0

Since, regardless of plurality of name, it is only a singular company taking the action, 'is' would be more appropriate here. Maybe this is made more clear by imagining that it was instead called Scottish Chickens Inc. where everything is still plural but it's clearer in reading that Scottish Chickens is the name of a singular entity. If you don't like the way it sounds, you could also take the more personal route and say 'We at Scottish Chickens are...'

randomidiomquestion
  • 312
  • "We at Scottish Chickens are..." is very good. However, standard press release style often demands the third person, and this may include the official communications GRL is asking about. In that case, "The Scottish Chickens corporation is..." would be another helpful alternative. – recognizer Jul 01 '15 at 14:54
  • Only in the U.S. In the U.K., one can say Microsoft are, the government are, Scottish Chickens are ... – Peter Shor Jul 01 '15 at 14:57
  • ... How far across the Atlantic do you have to change the way you speak? (It's a good job there's not a transatlantic road-bridge.) – Edwin Ashworth Jul 01 '15 at 22:30
  • @Edwin: well, I keep speaking in American even when I'm in the U.K., and I have not had many problems. (But with regard to the road-bridge, I would suggest adapting to British customs while driving. – Peter Shor Jul 02 '15 at 21:07
  • @Peter I'm rarely happy with these 'AmE vs BrE' things. Do you know of anyone residing in the US who chooses to use notional concord with collective nouns? – Edwin Ashworth Jul 02 '15 at 22:17
  • @Edwin: it depends on the noun. So I think "my family were" is fairly common, but "Microsoft were" or "Congress were" is rare enough that it sounds incorrect. And for sports teams with singular names it's now standard. So we say (about the Miami Heat basketball team) "Miami wins," but "the Heat win." – Peter Shor Jul 02 '15 at 22:49
  • ... We'll stick to the National Parks when we're over there, then. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 02 '15 at 23:22