Skip to main content

Boris Group or 'the' Boris Group? Is article omission an error?


From a native speaker standpoint, would it look OK if a company whose name follows the "X Group" pattern omits the use of the definite article when presenting itself on its website, like this (name changed a bit):



Boris Group provides full-service marketing research support across Russia. It is a team of highly skilled research professionals fluent in English and Russian. Boris Group offers expertise in multi-country project management all over the world. Boris Group is a preferred research supplier for international organizations in business & consumer sector.



The company's name does not include the, but would it merit the omission of the article in an introductory text about the company?


Would it be okay to underscore in this way the fact that the company's name, including the word Group, is a proper noun? Or should the be used anyway?


I earlier asked a similar question, and according to an answer given there by a native speaker, adding the is standard practice in media ("the Clarett Group"), but I still have doubts. Maybe a company can opt to write its name without the? Say, so that the reader do not make the mistake of thinking that the company name does include the.


Or would it be a grammatical mistake at any time to omit the in such constructions?



Answer



Names need not follow conventions. Indeed, in the case of trade names, marketers may deliberately break conventions to make them more memorable.


I see/hear nothing wrong with referring to Boris Group without a definite article. In fact, I consider this the conventional form, and find the article unusual when I come across it in names like The GEO Group or The Brilex Group. I myself work for an organization whose name is the pattern ABC Group, never the ABC Group.


If the article is considered part of the name, it is always included and generally capitalized, as with The Walt Disney Company. Otherwise, its use depends on convention, though the organization may indicate how it prefers to be referenced. We tend to say the Gannett Company even though it always refers to itself either as Gannett or as Gannett Co., without an article (e.g. Gannett Co. will report on its quarterly earnings on Thursday). On the flip side, The Ohio State University will never convince every non-Buckeye to include the preceding article; most state universities do not consider it to be part of the name.


Group is no different in this respect from other names which indicate the type of organization: corporation, company, organization, trust, firm, system, funds, brands, and so forth. Even within a single institution, the University of Pennsylvania, we can note the conflicting orthography of The Wharton School (article always included and always capitalized) and the Annenberg School (article always included and conventionally capitalized) and Penn Law (in this form, article never included, though officially it is the University of Pennsylvania Law School).


Comments

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 ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.