Pluralisation and corporate names

[Arta]

When you pluralise a verb, I'm pretty sure that the noun must be singular, which is rather unintuitive. Perhaps there's a different rule here? Intransitive verbs perhaps? This might not be anything to do with pluralisation, but I'll assume it does for now.

Example:

Citizen decides to paint house. (Citizen: singular. Decides: plural (?))
Citizens decide to paint house. (Citizens: plural. Decides: singular (?))

So, how should this work with corporate names? A corporation has legal identity, making it a 'person' (and thus, singular, in theory). That said, when one speaks about the actions of a corporation, one is generally referring to the actions of a group of people, making it plural. So, which of the following is correct?

IBM decide to paint headquarters.
IBM decides to paint headquarters.

[Newby]

IBM decides. =P

That's like asking, why do people say "a used car show" when it should be "an used car show"

[Mephisto]

IBM decides. =P

That's like asking, why do people say "a used car show" when it should be "an used car show"

No it shouldn't.  "a used car show" is correct.

[iago]

IBM decides. =P

That's like asking, why do people say "a used car show" when it should be "an used car show"

No it shouldn't.  "a used car show" is correct.

Mephiso is *gasp* correct.  If the u is long, like "you", it's not pronounced.  Just like if the first letter is a silent constant: "It's an historic monument".

Since IBM is a single entity:
IBM decides to eat chicken
Just like Joe is a single entity:
Joe decides to eat chicken

It's just like when you talk about "juice".  Although "juice" refers to all the juice in the world, when you talk about it you're treating it as one entity,
juice tastes good

That all makes sense to me.  If there was more than one IBM that you were talking about, you'd say
IBMs decide to eat chicken

Just like if you're talking about more than one juice:
Juices taste good.

[Arta]

IBMs decide to eat chicken

... unless IBM is already plural without the s! If you think of it as a group of people with a name, rather than a single organisation, it feels weird.

I think they both sound right

[iago]

IBMs decide to eat chicken

... unless IBM is already plural without the s! If you think of it as a group of people with a name, rather than a single organisation, it feels weird.

I think they both sound right

What about juice, though?

You wouldn't say, "Juice taste good" because "juice" is referring to more than once individual juice!

[Arta]

Juice isn't plural. Sure, there are many different kinds of juice, but the word itself isn't plural.

For example, you wouldn't say, "I tried 15 juice yesterday". You'd say, "I tried 15 juices yesterday". A better analagy would be sheep: the same word is used for the plural and the singular. Thus, you can say "sheep decides to eat grass" (1 sheep), or "sheep decide to eat grass" (>1 sheep) but never "sheeps decide to eat grass".

I think IBM is plural and signular, depending on whether you're referring to the corporate entity (singular) or the group of people comprising the corporation (plural). And, with that, I think I've answered my own question

IBM decide on new policy (the corporation has decided)
IBM decides on new policy (the employees/shareholders decided)

Thoughts?

[iago]

Juice isn't plural. Sure, there are many different kinds of juice, but the word itself isn't plural.

Neither is IBM.  Problem solved!

I think IBM is plural and signular, depending on whether you're referring to the corporate entity (singular) or the group of people comprising the corporation (plural). And, with that, I think I've answered my own question

IBM decide on new policy (the corporation has decided)
IBM decides on new policy (the employees/shareholders decided)

I think you have it backwards there, the plural version is the first one.

But in any case, I still disagree.  I don't think there's every a plural version of a corporation.  If you want plural, "IBM Employees" or "IBM Shareholders" or "IBM buildings", not just "IBM".  But when you do that, you're no longer talking about IBM, you're talking about a part of it. 

Another example is a person.  "John is slimy" -- John is singular, even though he's made up of many parts.  "John's organs are slimy", "John's hairs are pointy", "John's manners are deadly", etc. -- you're talking about a part of John, just like you're trying to talk about a part of IBM..

John decides to turn off -- John is a single person
John decide to turn off -- makes no sense
John's organs decide to turn off -- His organs are plural

[shout]

I think this is not a pluralization issue, this is a verb conjugation issue.

Ex:

He goes to the mall.
Neither he nor mall is plural. The 'es' is appended during conjugation.

They go to some malls.
Both they and malls is plural, no 'es' is present.

'S' or 'es' is appended when verbs are conjugated in the 3rd person singular.

Code Select Expand


    | singular | plural
1st | I go     | we go
2nd | you go   | ----
3rd | he goes  | they go
      she goes
      it goes

[MyndFyre]

When you pluralise a verb, I'm pretty sure that the noun must be singular, which is rather unintuitive. Perhaps there's a different rule here? Intransitive verbs perhaps? This might not be anything to do with pluralisation, but I'll assume it does for now.

Example:

Citizen decides to paint house. (Citizen: singular. Decides: plural (?))
Citizens decide to paint house. (Citizens: plural. Decides: singular (?))

So, how should this work with corporate names? A corporation has legal identity, making it a 'person' (and thus, singular, in theory). That said, when one speaks about the actions of a corporation, one is generally referring to the actions of a group of people, making it plural. So, which of the following is correct?

IBM decide to paint headquarters.
IBM decides to paint headquarters.

No, no.  S-V agreement dictates that singular verb conjugations must match singular subjects.  You pluralize a verb by removing the "s".  Singular verbs have an S.

[edit] generally.

[shout]

No, no.  S-V agreement dictates that singular verb conjugations must match singular subjects.  You pluralize a verb by removing the "s".  Singular verbs have an S.

[edit] generally.

View the table in my first post.

[R.a.B.B.i.T]

IBMs decide to eat chicken

... unless IBM is already plural without the s! If you think of it as a group of people with a name, rather than a single organisation, it feels weird.

I think they both sound right

It's singular because it's one group of people.  Think like teams.
Team decide to eat chicken <- wrong
Team decides to eat chicken <- right

Teams decide to eat chicken <- right
Teams decides to eat chicken <- wrong

Same thing for IBM, since it's one group of people.

[Arta]

Hmm, well, I used decides, so it looks like I'm ok

Interesting distinctions being made though. I agree that 'decides' is right, but I'm not sure I agree about the rules involved: congugation or pluralisation, for example? I think I'm leaning towards congugation.

We need a grammar expert

[R.a.B.B.i.T]

You forget that people suck at their native language.  Most people probably don't know how to conjugate english words (rather they just sort of do it).

[Rule]

Hmm, well, I used decides, so it looks like I'm ok

Interesting distinctions being made though. I agree that 'decides' is right, but I'm not sure I agree about the rules involved: congugation or pluralisation, for example? I think I'm leaning towards congugation.

We need a grammar expert

Myndfyre (and Shout -- yes you only get your name in ellipses, sorry) are right - adding 's' to a verb often puts it in a singular form.  So you are matching a singular noun to a singular verb.  It is "singular by definition," and seeing as though it works the opposite way with nouns, I can see why this would be counter-intuitive. 

I don't see the distinction between "pluralisation" and "conjugation" of these verbs.  The form of the verb is conjugated to reflect whether the noun it is referring to is in singular or plural form. 

The same rules apply to intransitive verbs, I think.


Modification -->  In the (in)complete sentences where you do have verbs that don't refer to nouns, when used imperatively or otherwise, they seem to take the "plural" form.

e.g. Go make me an apple pie!   

Different examples, using verbs in the infinitive form -->

And from then on, I decided it was best to let him do all the cleaning.

I'm tempted to say that unless the verb isn't in the infinitive form yet refers to a noun, it takes the plural form.