The 1920s were or was

Orion101

Hello,

Looking to confirm something.

In the following sentence should I use was/were?

The 1920s was/were a difficult time in rural America, but this was not always the case

I would be inclined to go for were, because the 1920s refers to a number of years.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Orion101

Much obliged!

pickarooney

I disagree.

'The 1920s were difficult years' are youre referring to them individually.
'The 1920s was a difficult time' as you're referring to a single period of time spanning ten years.

amacachi

pickarooney wrote: »

I disagree.

'The 1920s were difficult years' are youre referring to them individually.
'The 1920s was a difficult time' as you're referring to a single period of time spanning ten years.

I'd agree with that, depends on context.

deman

It depends as pickarooney said.

You could see the 1920s as 10 separate years or as a single decade. Both are considered correct.

MathsManiac

I agree with Donegalfella. Compare with:

"The three brothers were a team when the time to compete came."
"The three brothers was a team when the time to compete came." (!)

When the verb "to be" as linking a singular and a plural noun, it agrees with the one preceding, I think.

I don't think that the term "The 1920s" has moved far enough away from its literal meaning to have lost its plural sense.

deman

MathsManiac wrote: »

I agree with Donegalfella. Compare with:

"The three brothers were a team when the time to compete came."
"The three brothers was a team when the time to compete came." (!)

When the verb "to be" as linking a singular and a plural noun, it agrees with the one preceding, I think.

I don't think that the term "The 1920s" has moved far enough away from its literal meaning to have lost its plural sense.

Not the same thing at all. Three brothers is only plural and can't be seen as a single unit.

MathsManiac

deman wrote: »

Not the same thing at all. Three brothers is only plural and can't be seen as a single unit.

Three brothers can can of course be considered a single unit, when they are a team that competes in a game.

And the 1920s were a period of time that was hard for many.

I do see the other point of view and it is reasonable - I just disagree with it.

Anyway, the original sentence has a more serious problem, in my view. Is is now the case that the 1920s were a difficult time, but at some other point in time, the 1920s were not a difficult time? This is a rather perplexing assertion.

deman

MathsManiac wrote: »

Three brothers can can of course be considered a single unit, when they are a team that competes in a game.

And the 1920s were a period of time that was hard for many.

I do see the other point of view and it is reasonable - I just disagree with it.

Let's agree to disagree then.... cos you're wrong

Micilin Muc

MathsManiac wrote: »

"The three brothers were a team when the time to compete came."
"The three brothers was a team when the time to compete came." (!)

"The three brothers were a team" is correct.

"Shamrock Rovers are rubbish" is British English (what we speak in Ireland).
"Shamrock Rovers is rubbish" is American English.

I also agree with what pickarooney says.

Donkey Oaty

Micilin Muc wrote: »

"Shamrock Rovers are rubbish" is British English (what we speak in Ireland).

In Ireland we speak Hiberno-English, not British English. That's a linguistic fact, not a political point.

And wouldn't Americans say: "The Shamrock Rovers are trash"?

Micilin Muc

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

In Ireland we speak Hiberno-English, not British English.

I suppose what I meant to say was that on that particular aspect of grammar, Hiberno-English is the same as British English.

And wouldn't Americans say: "The Shamrock Rovers are trash"?

Yes to 'trash', but they would say "Shamrock Rovers is trash".

Donkey Oaty

I'm curious as to why you think the USA use the singular.

For example, from the LA Galaxy (soccer team) website:

"The LA Galaxy are going into the playoffs with the #1 position from the West."

"The LA Galaxy are committed to supporting programs..."

And so on.

FTGFOP

Americans wouldn't say "Notre Dame are a great team"; they would say "Notre Dame is a great team". That The LA Galaxy, and The Chicago Fire soccer teams use 'are' on their websites is interesting. Perhaps it can be put down to British English being tied-up with soccer.

"[Americans] tend to say: "The government is grappling with the problem." The Brits would say: "The government ARE grappling with the problem."" (from here)

As for the OP's question, I would go with 'were' over 'was'. I don't think the choice is between correct and incorrect, just a matter of style. To my ears 'were' sounds more natural than 'was'. I read 'were' without noticing it, when I read 'was' it jarred a little.

Edit: Americans, if the team name is plural (The Yankees, The Giants etc.) would use 'are' just like us. I don't think they would say "Shamrock Rovers is trash."

Micilin Muc

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

I'm curious as to why you think the USA use the singular.

That's what I was taught before by TEFL. Here's a reference.

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

For example, from the LA Galaxy (soccer team) website:

"The LA Galaxy are going into the playoffs with the #1 position from the West."

"The LA Galaxy are committed to supporting programs..."

And so on.

American English and British English (and Hiberno English) are becoming assimilated, I'd reckon that's the reason for this quotation!

Donkey Oaty

Thanks for that source, Mic. Interesting to see that Swan hedges his bets with the American use of group nouns:

In American English singular verbs are normally used with most of these nouns in all cases (though family can have a plural verb). Plural pronouns can be used...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

metrovelvet

In American english the "s" nullifes the collective singular status. The 1920s take the third person plural just as the New York Yankees do for the same reason.

In other instances, the singular would be used when the team behaves as a unit.

The team was delighted over its victory.

When the team act separately, the plural is used.

The team shower and change before they go home.

The answer is The 1920s WERE [in British or American English.]

looksee

metrovelvet wrote: »

In American english the "s" nullifes the collective singular status. The 1920s take the third person plural just as the New York Yankees do for the same reason.

In other instances, the singular would be used when the team behaves as a unit.

The team was delighted over its victory.

When the team act separately, the plural is used.

The team shower and change before they go home.

The answer is The 1920s WERE [in British or American English.]

But like the team acting as a unit, and being singular, the years are acting as a unit so should be singular. It's the single period of time that includes all the years starting with 192-.

metrovelvet

looksee wrote: »

But like the team acting as a unit, and being singular, the years are acting as a unit so should be singular. It's the single period of time that includes all the years starting with 192-.

Yes but as I already said the "s" at the end changes the noun from a collective singular to a straightforward plural.

pickarooney

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yes but as I already said the "s" at the end changes the noun from a collective singular to a straightforward plural.

The plural of what? You can't have a singular '1920' the same way you can have a singular New York Yankee.

Other indicators that 'The 1920s' is a singular noun:

'At the beginning of the 1920s' implies it's a single stretch of time.
'The markets fluctuated wildly during the 1920s' shows the same.

metrovelvet

pickarooney wrote: »

The plural of what? You can't have a singular '1920' the same way you can have a singular New York Yankee.

Other indicators that 'The 1920s' is a singular noun:

'At the beginning of the 1920s' implies it's a single stretch of time.
'The markets fluctuated wildly during the 1920s' shows the same.

Your examples don't really argue well for singularity.

However, on reflection, one could argue that it depends on the object that follows.

So one could say "the 1920s was a decade of great financial turbulance."

"The 1920s is one of the most written about periods in history."

pickarooney

metrovelvet wrote: »

Your examples don't really argue well for singularity.

They do, actually, but you have to put a small bit of effort into understanding why.

MathsManiac

pickarooney wrote: »

'The markets fluctuated wildly during the 1920s' shows the same.

"The markets fluctuated less wildly during the decades that followed."

Are we now to treat these "decades" as a singualar noun too? Hence, I don't think this example helps to advance the case for the singular.

pickarooney

MathsManiac wrote: »

"The markets fluctuated less wildly during the decades that followed."

Are we now to treat these "decades" as a singualar noun too? Hence, I don't think this example helps to advance the case for the singular.

"Decades" is a plural with an obvious singular - "decade". One decade (singular, called 'the 1930s') plus another (singular: 'the 1940s') gives "decades", plural.

It's not grammatically possible to distill 1920s down to one individual 1920 plus another 1920, therefore leaving us with 'the 1920s' as one syntagmatic unit, describing the period from 1st January 1920 to 31st December 1929.

metrovelvet

pickarooney wrote: »

"Decades" is a plural with an obvious singular - "decade". One decade (singular, called 'the 1930s') plus another (singular: 'the 1940s') gives "decades", plural.

It's not grammatically possible to distill 1920s down to one individual 1920 plus another 1920, therefore leaving us with 'the 1920s' as one syntagmatic unit, describing the period from 1st January 1920 to 31st December 1929.

The "s" is what makes it plural in both decades and in the 1920s.

The debate is in those plurals which don't have an s, also known as collective singulars, such as family or team.

pickarooney

I'm not going over this again. I've made my opinion clear enough already.