Skip to main content

grammatical number - Singular and plural ambiguity of the noun "trio"


According to dictionary.com, a trio is defined as "any group of three persons or things".



trio


noun, plural trios.


any group of three persons or things.



Trio is a singular noun that refers to a group of people. Is this singular word ambiguous with its plural meaning? This is the sentence that sparked this question:



Without idle chitchat to distract them, the trio was reminded of their missing friend.



The fragment uses the word "them" to refer to the three people. However, should "was" be "were", or is it fine as it is? Since trio means a group of things, yet the word itself is not automatically plural, I find it disconcerting to switch from plural to singular pronouns.



Answer



As the grammatical-number tag you have added implies, this is a matter of the 'number' of the word. As the dictionary definition says, trio is a singular noun, even though a trio is made up of three objects or people. So it is correct (and sounds correct to me) to use "was" with it instead of "were".


In general, collective nouns such as "trio" take singular forms of the verb, and this is the "correct" - or at least traditional - usage. For example, "The flock [singular] of sheep is in a field" vs. "The sheep [plural] are in a field".


However, in recent years this has begun to change in some circumstances. The examples which I most commonly hear are ones such as, "The government have made a new policy" and "England have beaten Germany in the football championship". (The last of these being both grammatically peculiar, as well as unlikely.) Both of these sound wrong to me but are increasingly used, including by the BBC, so should probably now be considered part of standard English. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_noun#Metonymic_merging_of_grammatical_number).


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more