Do you use is/are and has/have in the UK?
Posted by travelingwhilestupid@reddit | AskABrit | View on Reddit | 136 comments
Unfortunately I can't do a poll, but I'm interested in a singular/plural question. In Australia, do you say
- The Rolling Stones has sent me an email (logic: it, the band, has); or
- The Rolling Stones have sent an email (logic: plural)?
Same for is/are
- The Rolling Stones is selling its back catalogue (logic: it, the band, is); or
- The Rolling Stone are selling their back catalogue (logic: plural)?
Or make a joke with that good British sense of humour.
FlyBoy572@reddit
There is only one correct way to use verbs in English; it doesn't matter where you life.
Phases such as "we is" are incorrect.
Present_Resident_651@reddit
I question that. :)
'We was' is common in my native dialect. I would argue strongly that it is 'correct' in conversation between two speakers of the a dialect. We are still speaking English, rather than, say, French or Japanese.
By 'correct' I mean both can understand it perfectly. Both find it natural. It only becomes 'incorrect' when the conversation is expected to be in the standard dialect of English, which happens to be closer to your dialect than it is to others'. For speakers whose dialect is close to the standard, this can be a jolt. But they would still understand 'we was'.
As an ESOL teacher in an area where one particular dialect of English is strong, I tend to teach 'This is the English you need for your citizenship test - but you will also hear...'
(We don't tend to say 'we was' where I am now, though - but , e.g. we do often do past participles differently.: 'I haven't saw him today')
FlyBoy572@reddit
Dialect has nothing to do with using correct verb tense.
Being understood and using correct grammar are two different things. I can understand someone saying "he were a good boy". However, I would still view that person as semi-literate.
happymisery@reddit
So for me, The Rolling Stones are a group of people and so would use "have/are" but if this was an email from a company which is a singular entity, it would be "Asda has sent me an email" or "Asda is selling Pepsi on offer"
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
Barclays, Boots, Greggs, Specsavers ... has/have? is/are?
luujs@reddit
I’d say plural. “Barclays have sent me my bank statement” sounds better in my head than “Barclays has sent me my bank statement”. Same for football clubs, “Liverpool have won the match” over has. They’re groups of people, so I’d refer to them as a plural, even though they’re all singular groups
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
both sound fine to me, so I'd default to singular, but I understand where you're coming from.
The_Flurr@reddit
In my non-professional vibes-based opinion, neither is wrong.
As others have pointed out, a company can be considered either a singular entity or a plural of people, or both at once.
atomicshrimp@reddit
English is a vibes-based language. People may try to insist that it has rules but at best, those rules are just transcribed vibes.
grahamssister@reddit
Singular. All of them
Due_Dot5710@reddit
Greggs is open. Agree. Greggs is making a new sandwich? Disagree. Greggs are making a new sandwich.
grahamssister@reddit
You're right - I didn't think the nuance through. Greggs is open (the branch of Greggs is open). Greggs are making a new sandwich (the entire chain of Greggs). So it's the difference between singular & plural
Due_Dot5710@reddit
Which means we add hidden words via context. Is (the) Greggs (next door) open? Vs Are (the chain) Greggs still in business).
The same entity can be talked about in both singular or plural in many cases.
Manchester United is a big club. Manchester United are playing Chelsea. For Americans the latter is still singular.
AtebYngNghymraeg@reddit
I had to think about this, and I'm still not sure. In fact, I'm probably inconsistent. I think I'd say "Gregg's is crap" but probably "Barclays are rubbish".
SomethingUninspired@reddit
Saying “Greggs is crap” has to be some form of high treason and grounds for AT MINIMUM exile. Greggs is/are a national treasure.
AtebYngNghymraeg@reddit
I genuinely think the food is mediocre. We have two independent bakeries in our village, and both are better than Greggs.
Ill-Maintenance8986@reddit
Heathen.
SomethingUninspired@reddit
It absolutely is mediocre, but it’s OUR mediocre.
Joking aside, I grew up super poor in a rural area so the occasional trip to a nearby town for a shit pastry from Greggs is just embedded into my rose-tinted nostalgia. Either that or I’m a deep-state Greggs plant.
happymisery@reddit
Those examples would likely to be "has/is" because they are a singular entity (at least in my mind). I dont know if it's correct, but thats how my mind works because although they end in an "S" they're brand names and aren't plural.
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
In languages there's rarely a 'correct.' If enough people say it, then it's a valid possibility.
herwiththepurplehair@reddit
Language has structure, and it has structure for a reason. A company name is generally "is" because the entity is singular eg Boots is a pharmacy, Specsavers is an opticians. The Rolling Stones are a group of people, "are" being the operative word here.
waggers5@reddit
A company is also a group of people - it's literally what the word company means. Similarly it's possible to think of a band or group as a single entity. And indeed there are some "bands" that are actually just an individual - Olly Alexander for example famously continued to use the name "Years & Years" for a while even when he was the sole member of it. So I don't think it's as clear cut as you're making out.
The real answer is it depends whether we are considering the entity as a brand (singular) or the group of people behind it (plural) and there's no distinction between companies, bands, etc.
I might say "Tesco has a sale on" - singular because I'm referring to Tesco as a single brand in that instance. I'm talking about the brand, not the company.
Or I might say "Tesco have decided to put a sale on" because there were presumably multiple people involved in making the decision, so it's plural. I'm talking about the company, not the brand.
There's no one-size-fits-all rule, it's very much context-dependent.
Ill-Maintenance8986@reddit
Bad example. A company is a defined separate entity. ‘Is’ will always be the only appropriate use in that example. With other collectives, it is, indeed, as you say, driven by the focus - are you referring to the individuals collectively (are) or are you referring the distinct ‘collection’ that those individuals together create (is). The rules are pretty firm, but it’s the interpretation about the subject which flexs.
The_Flurr@reddit
There are instances where more than one thing is correct.
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
You... might find that these 'obvious' rules vary across time, across speakers of English, across different languages, etc.
Solid_Contact6529@reddit
I would say plural for all of those because they are a large collective of people. I don’t see companies as a single entity I guess.
No_Bullfrog_6474@reddit
yes this!
alphahydra@reddit
With band names, if the name is plural, people will almost universally treat it as a plural grammatically:
The Rolling Stones are selling their back catalogue
But of course, if the band name is singular, it's then treated as a singular entity:
Iron Maiden is selling its back catalogue
That doesn't apply universally to all plural-titled things though. For example, there will be some variation from person-to-person, but I think the majority of people would say:
The Simpsons is on next versus "The Simpsons are on next*
TopBookChat1105@reddit
I would have agreed with this until I qualified as a lawyer and accepted practice of referring to something belong to a legal company for example is “theirs” I find it weird still but every time I write it’s it gets knocked out.
envious_coward@reddit
It is definitely more common to say "Iron Maiden are selling their back catalogue", it would be really strange to hear someone treat them as singular in speech. I'm not sure why you think it is the other way round.
alphahydra@reddit
See my reply to u/mckjerral
You're right that "selling their back catalogue" probably is more likely to be treated as plural. It's a bad example.
But in other common contexts a singlularly-titled band is more likely to be treated as a single object e.g. "Iron Maiden's playing Download".
Howtothinkofaname@reddit
It’s not uncommon to use ‘s when abbreviating even when we would use are in the full form, colloquially at least.
So for me, and in my experience the general rule in Britain:
Iron Maiden are playing: yes
Iron Maiden’s playing: yes
Iron Maiden is playing: no
The last one sounds distinctly non British to my ear. This is a fairly well documented difference between different varieties of English.
Charliesmum97@reddit
Frankie Say Relax, v. Frankie Says Relax. In the States the (knockoff, I guess?) shirts said 'says' and that infuriated me.
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
What about Boots, Greggs, Specsavers, Marks and Spencer?
ayeayefitlike@reddit
I’d treat them all as singular.
Bands are different because they’re a plural of people to me.
mckjerral@reddit
I'd treat all of those as a plural, but because they are chains of many shops, rather than the names being plural. When discussing a singular shop maybe the name comes into it more.
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
KFC/Burger King?
alphahydra@reddit
Usually:
"Boots is opening a new store..."
You might also hear "Boots are opening a new store", but that seems less "correct", and definitely more of a grammatical quirk that might come out occasionally in conversational speech, versus something you'd read in the news or hear in a formal context.
mckjerral@reddit
This is the nuance I can see to it. For a band whose name is a plural it's a double whammy, and the singular sounds completely wrong. For a band whose name is singular, I think it's more flexible.
Iron Maiden have announced a new album.
Metallica is playing in Cardiff next month.
I think I still lean to the plural being more appropriate, but it sounds less wrong using the singular compared to when the band's name is a plural.
alphahydra@reddit
Yeah, actually now you say that, I think "selling their back catalogue" isn't the best example to illustrate the singular, and highlights a further nuance.
If the sentence implies complex agency (e.g. selling the back catalogue) we're more likely to unconsciously imagine the band's members acting in some way and therefore are more likely to tend towards treating it as a plural.
If it's a simpler concept of action or a description of a state of being (Metallica's playing in Cardiff) then we're more likely to conceive of it as a single entity and use the singular.
Sea_Appointment8408@reddit
Depends on the context.
TapeDeckSlick@reddit
This
And this for me
Appropriate-Roof1422@reddit
The Rolling stones sent me an email. It happened in the past, it was sent once.
The Rolling Stones is selling their back catalogue. They are an entity.
I may be totally wrong. :)
c00ble@reddit
The rolling stones are selling their back catalogue, it's a plural
"The rolling stone is selling their back catalogue" Vs "the rolling stones are selling their back catalogue"
Appropriate-Roof1422@reddit
Thank you.
I get it, but because they are treated as a singular legal entity when they sell, I think 'is' may be more appropriate.
Howtothinkofaname@reddit
Whether or not it is more appropriate, it isn’t the standard in British English. It is in American English (though I’m not sure they’d do it for such an obviously plural name).
EngineersAnon@reddit
Speaking as an American, that's exactly how I'd handle it. I'd use the singular for a group acting in concert like that - unless the name were grammatically plural, for euphony. So, for example, Led Zeppelin is having a concert next week, and the Rolling Stones are having a concert in the same arena a month later.
Appropriate-Roof1422@reddit
Great rule, thank you.
Appropriate-Roof1422@reddit
Thanks for your input. As I said, I may be wrong.
tannercolin@reddit
You are.
tannercolin@reddit
You are.
FewJob4450@reddit
Although I can't think of any right now, I think there are plenty of instances where we use the singular "is" because we're referring to the entity, but in this case it feels really off, I'm guessing because we're thinking of them as individuals rather than as one entity
UserCannotBeVerified@reddit
The barber (individual person) is calling me back.
The barbers (shop/company/group of people) are calling me back.
The doctor (individual person) is calling me.
The doctors (establishment, group of people) are calling me.
It just depends what the subject is, if it is an individual then its singular is/has/was, if its a group/company/etc then it is am assumed plural are/have/were.
Doctor is calling/has called/was calling VS Doctors are calling/have called/were calling.
Howtothinkofaname@reddit
When it comes to named entities such as bands, teams or companies, there absolutely are differences between British and American standards.
andybuxx@reddit
It's not
Grillenium-Falcon@reddit
It not**
LaraH39@reddit
You are totally and utterly incorrect.
Appropriate-Roof1422@reddit
Explain why. Give a grammatical explanation.
29407258729587348957@reddit
The usual rules here - for the media for example - is "doesn't matter, but pick one and stick with it".
England is the best team in group C
England are the best team in group C.
(Hypothetical scenario where England is the only team in group C).
Ill-Maintenance8986@reddit
Despite what I said above, this absolutely is the correct answer. Nothing worse than flip-flopping between the two.
Howtothinkofaname@reddit
Though what you will generally find is that the UK media pick option 2 and American and Australian pick option 1 which reflects how people talk.
Badger-of-Briarwood@reddit
We refer to Mick Jagger as "a Rolling Stone", just as we refer to Paul McCartney as "a Beatle" so it is natural to use The Rolling Stones and The Beatles with the plural.
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
But Mick jagger didn't send you an email. Paul didn't either.
EngineersAnon@reddit
Bold of you to assume who I'm getting emails from.
Effective_Soup7783@reddit
It varies depending on the person saying it, but in my experience people tend to use the plural more naturally for things that have pluralised names (such as The Rolling Stones, or Marks & Spencer), or things that have multiple members even with a singular name (‘Blur are releasing a new album’ is probably more common than ‘Blur is releasing a new album’), but you’ll hear both.
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
Yeah, M&S is another good example. It's a name, Spencer isn't doing it with his mate Mark... so good example.
TurbulentContext@reddit
People regularly pluralise shop names though. It's not what is written on the sign but you will here people say "I got it in Marks & Spencers" or "I'm going into Tescos at lunch time"
EngineersAnon@reddit
Is that a plural, though, or possessive? Obviously, they'd sound the same, but...
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
Is that just a "wrong" thing that we accept in slang? Like Marks and Sparks
TurbulentContext@reddit
It's wrong as in it's not on the sign but the other person was pointing out the difference between a singular and plural shop name and I was pointing out people often repluralise it when speaking.
Present_Resident_651@reddit
I question that.
'We was' is fairly common in my dialect of English. I don't think it's 'incorrect' - it's just in a different dialect than yours. Yours maybe happens to be closer to the de facto standard. But there is nothing inherently correct about your dialect. it only became the standard because of various socio-economic/ historical/ political accidents.
Many English speakers are competent in more than one dialect and can 'code switch' between them and Standard English.
Nervous_Tourist_8699@reddit
We would normally use the plural even if it was a singular entity in relation to a sporting team. So it would be Arsenal are Premier League Champions.
Different in context for companies eg Boots is sht or Boots are cnts.
Makes no sense, but hey
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
in the Boots example you gave, I'd think one is the organisation and the other are the employees at Boots.
Nervous_Tourist_8699@reddit
Disagree. Would normally say “those people at boots are cunts” if talking about employees.“Boots are cunts” refers to the company.
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
You sure you're not Aussie?
squishypaws25541@reddit
it’s just basic grammar depends if it’s plural
huwareyou@reddit
I’m a music journalist and it’s always “are” for bands for the publications I write for. On Wikipedia, it’s a rule enforced for pretty much all British bands, whether their name has a plural in it or not (Fleetwood Mac have had a lot of edit wars, as you can imagine). That said, like a lot of British English conventions, I imagine it’s getting eroded by American conventions.
To get really anal with it, I think “the Rolling Stones has sent me an email” sounds more “correct” than “the Rolling Stones is selling its back catalogue” because, in the email example, it could be referring to the Rolling Stones as a brand rather than Mick, Keef and Ronnie at a laptop.
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
So Bon Jovi is plural when referring to the band?
huwareyou@reddit
Totally, I’d definitely say / write “Bon Jovi are headlining”. Other Brits may go for “is” but I do think that is mostly a North American convention creeping in over here.
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
It gets tough. What about James Arthur? I feel like you could be referring to him as an individual, or him as a band (his plus the other musicians and the crew)
Decard_Pain@reddit
You could just do.
The rolling stones sent an email.
If you want it that they sent multiple emails.
The rolling stones sent emails.
The rolling stones are selling their back catalogue. Is would be wrong here.
simonjp@reddit
I read a good congecture that it matters whether the entity is acting as a collective or as a singular entity at that moment.
The family are tall > on average the individuals in that family are tall.
The family is on holiday > the members of that family are on holiday together.
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
Family would have been a great example. My running conjecture right now is that if you can identify individuals (bands, families, teams), then it's "they" no matter what. If it's a companies like Boots/Specsavers/Greggs/Marks&Spencer, then its "it".
maskapony@reddit
But this definitely isn't the case for institutions. We would always say The Police are at the door, or The NHS are moving to online appointments etc.
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
Some people make a distinction for "The police are at my door (there's two of 'em)" vs "The police has a policy" (instutition) (although to my ear, the singular form sounds terrible).
maskapony@reddit
Maybe this is something regional but personally the police is or has i swear I have never used those words together ever and neither have I heard other people too.
Like with all language and usage it's very dependent on what you learned but just adding as a data point.
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
There's a class element too. I've sometimes heard posh people saying things which are absurd to my ears, and then they instance that the rules of Latin should apply.
simonjp@reddit
Oh, I dunno-
iamthefirebird@reddit
"Marks and Spencer" is a singular entity, as is "Greggs" etc. Something like the Rolling Stones is more complicated in my mind, since you could argue that is is singular (the singular entity of "the band") or plural (comprised of several "stones" or several members within the entity of "the band"). Furthermore, the pronoun "they" is both singular and plural, and we don't say "they is here" outside of specific dialects, so the so-called plural version of the verb can also be singular as well. In practice, "the band has questions" and "the band have questions" both sound correct, with very slightly different implications; "the band [as an entity] has questions" vs "the band [members] have questions".
And yes, "they" is both singular and plural. If it's good enough for Shakespeare, it's good enough for me.
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
>And yes, "they" is both singular and plural. If it's good enough for Shakespeare, it's good enough for me.
They is always conjugated as a plural (see what did there?)
iamthefirebird@reddit
Exactly! Even when used as a singular, it is still conjugated as a plural. Therefore, other singulars can sometimes be conjugated as plurals.
ChronicleFlask@reddit
This is just a house style issue. The answer is that no one cares unless you’re writing for a publication which has a rule on it, and then you must follow that rule.
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
Fair.
foxhill_matt@reddit
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_in_the_English_language#Notional_agreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_American_and_British_English#Subject%E2%80%93verb_agreement
croomsy@reddit
Rolling Stones as a pluralilised name complicates things. It suggests a collective, a group rather than an entity although technically an entity. Usually you would treat it as singular entity
maceion@reddit
Yes. It is very routine to use "is" or "are" and "has" and "have". The wrong use of these grammar verbs, would indicate someone's lack of education.
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
Which one is the correct one?
maceion@reddit
All are correct in their correct use context. "is" is always singular. "are" is plural or many. "has" is singular. "have" can be singular or many.
maceion@reddit
All are correct in their correct use context.
VampireAmaya@reddit
For your Rolling Stones examples, I would say "have" and "are".
For shops or other places that you mention, it would depend.. If it's just the one location, I would say "has" and "is". Like if there's a sale on, but it's only at one specific location and not brand-wide, then "the store (this one specific location) is having a sale". If it's across multiple locations, "have" and "are". So a sale across multiple locations would be "the store (the entire brand) are having a sale".
TurbulentContext@reddit
Stones is plural.
If I said "Boots was closed today" I'd be talking about the one branch I tried maybe it had a plumbing issue.
"Marks and Spencer are doing a deal on cashmere jumpers" the deal is available at multiple locations.
"Liverpool is better than Chelsea" my opinion on two English locations
"Liverpool are better than Chelsea" my opinion on two English football teams.
Diddleymaz@reddit
I usually say. I have an email from someone or something. It’s definitely that way around for me and my family and friends use the same wording. Have you had my email ?
TomatoChomper7@reddit
I default to “are” and “have” naturally, but for professional purposes I will often use “is” and “has” when referring to a company. It’s been a bone of contention about how and when to use one or the other in official reporting, especially at team level.
595659565956@reddit
People referring to football teams in the singular is the quickest way to spot non-Brits in football subreddits
AlternativePrior9559@reddit
I’ve never recovered from having my email corrected from
The staff are revolting
To the staff is revolting
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
they mean two different things!
AlternativePrior9559@reddit
I know what I meanr🤣
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
which one did you mean?
AlternativePrior9559@reddit
We had a revolt on our hands when the company set up a coffee vending machine where previously it was all free.
Eastern_Arm1476@reddit
They invented the language. Why wouldn't they be using it properly.
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
well that's why I'm coming to the source!
Eastern_Arm1476@reddit
It's has for individuals and have for collectives.
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
What about Boots, Greggs, Specsavers, Marks and Spencer?
Eastern_Arm1476@reddit
Those are collectives surely
WinkyNurdo@reddit
As long as you’re consistent, and it’s grammatically correct, use either. I work in graphic design and always implement this rule.
Negative-Spell6275@reddit
Have and are. 100%. The U.S. way of using ‘has’ and ‘is’ for a collective of individual sentient humans is infuriating and absolutely wrong as far as I’m concerned. It just sounds stupid.
‘The Rolling Stones is releasing a new record’ sounds like the mad babbling of a c*nt.
Appropriate-Roof1422@reddit
Welcome to my regular straggle. To be honest use whatever, nobody will notice unless you are writing a doctoral thesis or an official document for publication.
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
haha
PomegranateV2@reddit
I think you've muddied the question a bit by using a name that is also a plural.
In Britain, people tend to say "England have won the cup!" because the English team is a small group of people. An American newspaper headline would always be "England has won the cup" because they are thinking of the team as an 'it'.
In your example, there are two reasons why it would be have/are.
It would also be "The rolling stones have gathered no moss" and "the rolling cheeses are being chased down the hill"
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
I can't really muddy the question, when that's exactly the question I'm asking! :)
Excellent_Swim_2721@reddit
It would imply a thing not a group of people?
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
Right, it's a legal entity. Would it make a difference if everyone had died?
princessstrawberry@reddit
Honestly I'd say "the rolling stone's sent me an email"
WilderWoman2187@reddit
Saying "the Beatles is" just feels wrong.
testdasi@reddit
I use (and have heard) both plural and singular conjugation for bands. It seems like if the band name is plural then people just naturally switch to plural and same with singular.
E.g.
Yes I'm old.
Maleficent-Leek2943@reddit
In general: Are/Have in British English. Is/Has in American English.
But in the email context, both sound weird to me. It’s not like the band as a collective sat down and sent someone an email, so I don’t think I’d say either. I might say “I got an email from The Rolling Stones” but in reality I’d probably say “I’m on The Rolling Stones’ mailing list and got an email that said XYZ”.
But in general, I’d say, for example “The Rolling Stones are going on tour for the 800th time next year” or whatever.
bright_sorbet1@reddit
It's more common in British English for collective nouns to be treated as plural.
The Rolling Stones have been to Vegas...
The Rolling Stones are touring Europe.
I think because people see bands as a group of people, there will be a more consistent agreement that it's plural.
For examples like "the team are top of the Premier league" - i'd imagine you'd hear more of a mixture. Although technically "are" is more correct in British English.
flummuxedsloth@reddit
I'd say haven't. They've never emailed me.
Great-Activity-5420@reddit
The rolling stones have sent me an email The rolling stones are It's to do with the rules of the English language why you were those words. I like it's because the rolling stones are more than one. "They are," but "she is"
-Soob@reddit
We treat it like a plural. Singular sounds really weird. E.g.
'The Rolling Stones have sent me an email' 'Have they?'
vs
'The Rolling Stones has sent me an email' 'Has it?'
PM-me-your-cuppa-tea@reddit
Have and are. My brain can't accept the incorrect ones.
Exception being if it were about a singular object of the Stones'
So the Rolling Stones' back catalogue is for sale.
Also you've said
For plural, I've answered assuming it's a typo rather than you making both options in the second exam incorrect
StardustOasis@reddit
Has and have. American English uses the other.
travelingwhilestupid@reddit (OP)
It's an either/or question. Has ... or... have?
StardustOasis@reddit
Depending on the context either. And are, rather than us.
ThePants999@reddit
Errrr. The question was has OR have, and is OR are. The answer cannot be has and have 🙂
qualityvote2@reddit
Hello u/travelingwhilestupid! Welcome to r/AskABrit!
For other users, does this post fit the subreddit?
If so, upvote this comment!
Otherwise, downvote this comment!
And if it does break the rules, downvote this comment and report this post!