Faithlife: Singular or Plural?

It has been interesting to see how different people on the forums address Faithlife as an entity. Personally I've always tended to view Faithlife as a singular entity and therefore when referring to them I would say "Faithlife has.." in the same way that I would speak of another organization like Google and say "Google has...".

But I've noticed that a number of people here refer to Faithlife in a plural sense and therefore say "Faithlife have...".

Maybe I am wrong or maybe this is a cultural difference. But, as part of a "fun" poll, I'd be interested to know what terminology you use when referring to Faithlife as an organization? Would you say "Faithlife has..." or "Faithlife have..."? Smile

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Graham Criddle

I'd be interested to know what terminology you use when referring to Faithlife as an organization? Would you say "Faithlife has..." or "Faithlife have..."?

Looking at some recent posts of mine I have used:

it is something Faithlife would like to add
I have no idea whether this is something Faithlife would consider
Faithlife are looking into it
Hopefully someone from Faithlife will look at that.
Faithlife expressed an interest
Faithlife are looking at giving us the ability to control

I think this demonstrates that I am inconsistent in this area!

Which surprises me as I tend to think of Faithlife as a singular entity and would have expected I would use language that would indicate that

scooter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1018441#Comment_1018441

From Canada, I read the British press on soccer. They say, ''MU are...''

I say, '' MU is...'' To the point, I use singular for FL: it is one entity, as I believe MU is, as well.

EDIT: FL has

Great post, Bruce.

PetahChristian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1018458#Comment_1018458

I tend to think of (and refer to) a company as singular, even if it happened to be a multinational corporation with many subsidiaries around the world.

From Canada, I read the British press on soccer. They say, ''MU are...''

Unexpected poll tangent! (Not following the sport, I now know that) MU is a British football club. Do all Canadians refer to it as soccer, or is there a difference among Canadians?

Roy

My guess, and that is all it is, is that it has something to do with how the writer views groups like corporations.

I have seen this before when the writer is not from the U.S. and they write about a company like Faithlife. A writer from the U.S. will most likely say "Faithlife has done it again..." treating "Faithlife" like an individual, where-as a writer from, say the U.K. will say "Faithlife have done it again...".

We would not say "Mike have done it again..." but rather "Mike has done it again..." because "Mike" is an individual. Legally in the U.S. at least, Faithlife is treated as an individual. That is why the corporation as a whole, not the individual employees or stockholders are sued in a court of law. It is also why business owners can shield themselves personally from legal action by hiding behind the corporation. It is the corporations assets that are venerable in say a companies (corporations) bankruptcy and not necessarily the owners, depending on the type of corporation.

Me, being from the U.S., it drives me crazy when I see that usage. It's like seeing colour instead of color.

Reuben Helmuth

Faithlife is an entity IMO.

scooter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1018474#Comment_1018474

Unexpected poll tangent! (Not following the sport, I now know that) MU is a British football club. Do all Canadians refer to it as soccer, or is there a difference among Canadians?

We call it ''soccer.'' I used to have a buddy, who emigrated from England. He immediately switched to calling the game ''soccer,'' to distinguish the sport from our ''football,'' where we use the thrown ball in the CFL, the Canadian Football League.

The NFL is closely followed up here. It is the American version of thrown ball football.

To call kick-the-round-ball ''football' would throw a major spanner in the works.

I used to hear a hired-for-his-accent British pundit call round ball kicking ''footie'' on the soccer talk show, a Canadian enterprise, but this is as close to British usage as I have heard.

As an aside, I want a British / Irish / Scottish accent delivered both during and between game segments, as I associate soccer with the British Isles.

Jan Krohn

Collective nouns...

https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/09/05/agreement-over-collective-nouns/

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1018474#Comment_1018474

Unexpected poll tangent! (Not following the sport, I now know that) MU is a British football club. Do all Canadians refer to it as soccer, or is there a difference among Canadians?

Being Canadian myself, I say we are pretty messed up about what we call this sport. I grew up calling it soccer but I think things are changing. Toronto now has a professional team they call TFC - Toronto Football Club and it is pretty common to find this type of "football" on television.

In the past, I think our proximity to the NFL (National Football League) and CFL (Canadian Football League) we needed anther word other than football to describe the sport. But now we are a lot more multi-national and most of the world would call it football rather than soccer.

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1018491#Comment_1018491

Collective nouns...

https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/09/05/agreement-over-collective-nouns/

This is an interesting article and perhaps explains why our UK forum members use it differently. Here is a quote from that article.

[quote]The British view… However, the verb form used can depend on the emphasis of the sentence, and accepted regional usage, so no wonder many people are confused. In British English it’s absolutely fine to treat most collective nouns as either singular or plural – you can say my husband’s family is very religious or my husband’s family are very religious.

scooter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1018491#Comment_1018491

Collective nouns...

https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/09/05/agreement-over-collective-nouns/

That is British, which is perfectly fine, old chap, but not in Canada. ''A Canadian Writer's Reference'' [Hacker, Sommers, 6th ed.], p 220, treats team as a unit, so the verb is singular.

Canada is 1/2 way between British and USA English, so its risky looking on line.

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1018497#Comment_1018497

Canada is 1/2 way between British and USA English

That's why we are so messed up. [;)] We don't know whether to relate to the UK or to the USA.

Rick Ausdahl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1018483#Comment_1018483

Faithlife is an entity IMO.

Is Fathlife going to comment on this?

Or should I be asking, are Faithlife going to comment on this. [:^)]

I don't know which is right or if they are both acceptable ...but I know what feels the most natural to me and that is to use the singular. When referring to the company in general, I think of it as an entity (singular), not a host of nameless, faceless people (plural). And if I'm communicating with a representative from Faithlife, I'm always dealing with an individual (singular), not a group.

So for me, it's always felt awkward to use the plural or read it that way when others do, but at the end of the day, I say, "to each his own." [:)]

scooter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1018499#Comment_1018499

Canada is 1/2 way between British and USA English

That's why we are so messed up. We don't know whether to relate to the UK or to the USA.

We are becoming more American in accents, and word usage. Accent: more Canadians are saying Pampers as Paympers, and man as mayn.

Word usage: sports: He played powerful last night. SB powerfully. I believe this no-ly utilization is beyond rescue. I hear the sans-ly used everywhere, now. I attempt to add the ly, but my daughter caught me telling her, '' Drive safe,'' so I need to watch myself closer.

Another one: gonna. The USA sports articles I read on line, use ''gonna'' when they transcribe the questions answered into an article. I tend to say gonna, myself: ''Gotta go. Gonna go to the store.'' So gotta has gotta go, but it isn't gonna. Ye know?

scooter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1018501#Comment_1018501

Faithlife is an entity IMO.

Is Fathlife going to comment on this?
Or should I be asking, are Faithlife going to comment on this.

I don't know which is right or if they are both acceptable ...but I know what feels the most natural to me and that is to use the singular. When referring to the company in general, I think of it as an entity (singular), not a host of nameless, faceless people (plural). And if I'm communicating with a representative from Faithlife, I'm always dealing with an individual (singular), not a group.

So for me, it's always felt awkward to use the plural or read it that way when others do, but at the end of the day, I say, "to each his own."

Rick, you are American, right?.....I believe you would use ''FL is...,'' the singular as the corp is one entity.

scooter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1018478#Comment_1018478

Me, being from the U.S., it drives me crazy when I see that usage. It's like seeing colour instead of color.

And we, in Canada, write a cheque. We call it mould [on the cheese], and moulding [put on the wall. I write the -ou version, except when I am in a hurry: here, with cheque, I write chx.

Noah Webster changed these spellings for Americans, I believe.

Jonathan Pitts

It has been interesting to see how different people on the forums address Faithlife as an entity. Personally I've always tended to view Faithlife as a singular entity and therefore when referring to them I would say "Faithlife has.." in the same way that I would speak of another organization like Google and say "Google has...".

But I've noticed that a number of people here refer to Faithlife in a plural sense and therefore say "Faithlife have...".

Maybe I am wrong or maybe this is a cultural difference. But, as part of a "fun" poll, I'd be interested to know what terminology you use when referring to Faithlife as an organization? Would you say "Faithlife has..." or "Faithlife have..."?

I looked this up a while ago in various grammars and style guides.

It's a situation where either is correct, but sometimes one is more correct than the other. In a particular case, is Faithlife acting as one body or as many people, or doesn't it matter?

The example that annoys me is in my legal work, when people say or write "the tribunal have decided". Three or more people working together to make one agreed decision is exactly the sort of situation where "the tribunal has decided" is "more correct".

However, my perception is that the plural is becoming more common in many walks of life. Most people don't notice the pain it causes to those of us who care a little too much about these things.

scooter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1018580#Comment_1018580

"the tribunal has decided" is "more correct".

However, my perception is that the plural is becoming more common in many walks of life. Most people don't notice the pain it causes to those of us who care a little too much about these things.

I feel pain over these issues, and improper speech, as well. Yet, I am guilty of improper speech, as I indicated above.

Jonathan, may I ask what country you are from?

My feel for language suggests that ''are'' with tribunal sounds more important, so members use it. Status, aye?

Jonathan Pitts

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1018581#Comment_1018581

Jonathan, may I ask what country you are from?

My feel for language suggests that ''are'' with tribunal sounds more important, so members use it. Status, aye?

I am from the [dis]United Kingdom, near London.

I'm not sure most people are really thinking about which form to use; it is just part of the general move to using plurals.