When I first read this question I thought it was a bit random, but I just thought about it and I would like to know also haha. I see both plural and singular uses of the word in different gaming websites so I really couldn't help you.
Just the same way a band is singular. However, most dialects and habits are formed and a lot of people are likely to say "Iron Maiden are a great band", but it should really be "Iron Maiden is a great band" as a band is a single unit.
Whereas the sentence "Metal bands are my favourite" would be the plural.
It depends on the context and your relationship to the noun. In this case, Ubisoft (although it could Ford Motor Company, the Dudacles family, or anything else) would likely be in the singular in most cases, however, depending on what the context is and our approach to the subject, could change. For example, if we were to say...
Ubisoft is doing well - the verb is singular
This is because we depict Ubisoft as one single entity. If we were to change it to the past-tense, and we continued to view Ubisoft as a single body it would be...
Ubisoft have done well - the verb is still singular because our view of Ubisoft is unchanged
The relationship we have to the collective noun, if consistant through the document, can be either singular or plural depending on our style. Style is not dictated by grammar. It might sound odd to say...
Microsoft are going to publish Halo ODST - but if we want to be consistant with...
Microsoft has published Halo ODST - that is the correct consistant recourse providing our view of Microsoft as a plural entity.
In American English, companies are viewed as singular entities, and as such the singular use of the verb is preferred when following a collective noun.
"It depends on the context and your relationship to the noun. In this case, Ubisoft (although it could Ford Motor Company, the Dudacles family, or anything else) would likely be in the singular in most cases, however, depending on what the context is and our approach to the subject, could change. For example, if we were to say...
Ubisoft is doing well - the verb is singular
This is because we depict Ubisoft as one single entity. If we were to change it to the past-tense, and we continued to view Ubisoft as a single body it would be...
Ubisoft have done well - the verb is still singular because our view of Ubisoft is unchanged
The relationship we have to the collective noun, if consistant through the document, can be either singular or plural depending on our style. Style is not dictated by grammar. It might sound odd to say...
Microsoft are going to publish Halo ODST - but if we want to be consistant with...
Microsofthas published Halo ODST - that is the correct consistant recourse providing our view of Microsoft as a plural entity.
In American English, companies are viewed as singular entities, and as such the singular use of the verb is preferred when following a collective noun."
I... don't understand. I was always under the impression that "have" is a plural form, while "has" is singular... (Well, third person singular at any rate.)
Yeah, I probably got something mixed up, but "have" is 1st person singular as well as plural. In fact I think I fell into the same trap I warned about by mixing up the singular and plural constancy.
This is something I found on the web, though that might help further clarify (or confuse) you.
"The names of companies and other organizations are usually regarded as singular, regardless of their ending: "General Motors has announced its fall lineup of new vehicles." Try to avoid the inconsistency that is almost inevitable when you think of corporate entities as a group of individuals: "General Motors has announced their fall lineup of new vehicles." But note that some inconsistency is acceptable in all but the most formal writing: "Ford has announced its breakup with Firestone Tires. Their cars will no longer use tires built by Firestone." Some writers will use a plural verb when a plural construction such as "Associates" is part of the company's title or when the title consists of a series of names: "Upton, Vernon, and Gridley are moving to new law offices next week" or "Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego & Associates have won all their cases this year." Singular verbs and pronouns would be correct in those sentences, also." http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/plurals.htm
"Is a company plural or singular in the English language? For instance, should I say "Ubisoft have..." or "Ubisoft has..."?My gut feeling says it's the latter, but I'm not sure. Can anyone clear this up for me?"
It is singular. When you talk about a group it is always singular. You wouldn't say "my family have".
It depends on how it's being used. If you're talking about the company as a singular entity, treat it like you would a singular noun. If you're talking about it as a collection of people, then use it like a plural noun.
"Is a company plural or singular in the English language? For instance, should I say "Ubisoft have..." or "Ubisoft has..."?My gut feeling says it's the latter, but I'm not sure. Can anyone clear this up for me?"
I've been thinking about posing this question as well.
AndrewGaspar said:
"It depends on how it's being used. If you're talking about the company as a singular entity, treat it like you would a singular noun. If you're talking about it as a collection of people, then use it like a plural noun."
Right. The question is, "which one of those is correct?"
"Ubisoft has..." is the correct one. Company is singular. Companies would not be. Since you dealing with the just the name of one single company it is "has".
Legally speaking, corporations are individuals, (except for the fact that they trade their doubly-taxed status for criminal impugnity), so in that sense they are singular.
This would apply to anything with a claim to a unified identity, whether it's a collection of entities portraying themselves as united or an individual in the classical western philosophic sense (which, in reality is a collection of billions of cells, which, in reality are collections of molecules, which, in reality are collections of quantum particles.)
In the end the notion of oneness is kind of arbitrary.
Log in to comment