[michael.aleksander]

Singular.. it is one university.
edit: Having said that, it can represent many smaller entities?

[Salome2]

(Original post by michael.aleksander)
Singular.. it is one university.

Well, yes, that's what I thought. But I've seen people use verb tenses specific to plural nouns in reference to Oxford so many times, I started doubting myself.

S2

[Pee jay]

It can be a collective noun.

[michael.aleksander]

(Original post by Salome2)
Well, yes, that's what I thought. But I've seen people use verb tenses specific to plural nouns in reference to Oxford so many times, I started doubting myself. I was thinking that perhaps there was an exception, but I'm glad there isn't.

S2

I think there are exceptions..
'Do Oxford reject...'
'Do the collection of colleges/tutors/etc. reject...'

[generalebriety]

(Original post by Salome2)
Perhaps not the right forum, but it's the only place I could think to post it: Is the word 'Oxford' plural or singular? I'm convinced it is the latter (University of Oxford is, so why shouldn't the shortened version be?), but I see a good amount of people on this forum writing that 'Oxford don't...' and 'Do Oxford...' which would indicate that it is plural. Even one of the stickys in this section is 'Do Oxford see module grades?'. I'm disinclined to think that they all have such a poor handle of English grammar. Am I missing something?

S2

Names of institutions, teams, places and bodies made up of a collection of people (e.g. the University of Oxford, Everton, Slough, the police, the government) are singular, but are often given a plural verb to indicate that the speaker is thinking of them as collections of people all doing the same thing, rather than as one unit. The idea behind it is: "do the members / fellows / staff of Oxford see module grades?" etc. This is considered fairly standard English.

[Salome2]

(Original post by generalebriety)
Names of institutions, teams, places and bodies made up of a collection of people (e.g. the University of Oxford, Everton, Slough, the police, the government) are singular, but are often given a plural verb to indicate that the speaker is thinking of them as collections of people all doing the same thing, rather than as one unit. The idea behind it is: "do the members / fellows / staff of Oxford see module grades?" etc. This is considered fairly standard English.

Thank you. That seemed like the most likely explanation in my mind, but I wasn't sure. Cheers!

[bon]

(Original post by generalebriety)
Names of institutions, teams, places and bodies made up of a collection of people (e.g. the University of Oxford, Everton, Slough, the police, the government) are singular, but are often given a plural verb to indicate that the speaker is thinking of them as collections of people all doing the same thing, rather than as one unit. The idea behind it is: "do the members / fellows / staff of Oxford see module grades?" etc. This is considered fairly standard English.

That's on the money.

For interest, such nouns are referred to as nouns of multitude.

Fowler, The King's English (1908): "Though nouns of multitude may be freely used with either a singular or a plural verb, or be referred to by pronouns of singular or plural meaning, they should not have both (except for special reasons and upon deliberation) in the same sentence; and words that will rank in one context as nouns of multitude may be very awkward if so used in another."

He cites an example of such an error: "The public is naturally much impressed by this evidence, and in considering it do not make the necessary allowances.—Times."

He also gives this as one of those "special reasons": "The Cabinet is divided is better, because in the order of thought a whole must precede division; and The Cabinet are agreed is better, because it takes two or more to agree."

Quite interesting actually!

[Jakko247]

A confluence of event led to the collapse of the Tsardom
or
A confluence of events led to the collapse of Tsardom

Is 'events' plural or singular?
I know its pedantic, but I would like to use this sentence correctly lol

same with

A collusion of interest
or
A collusion of interests

[bon]

(Original post by Jakko247)
A confluence of event led to the collapse of the Tsardom
or
A confluence of events led to the collapse of Tsardom

Is 'events' plural or singular?
I know its pedantic, but I would like to use this sentence correctly lol

same with

A collusion of interest
or
A collusion of interests

No idea why that post is warned.

A confluence of events - because a confluence implies at least two things (i.e. plural) merging.

And I wouldn't say a collusion of interests, because it's not the interests that are doing the colluding - James can collude in murder, but it's James that's doing the colluding with someone else. I suppose, though, if you really wanted to use collusion like that, the plural noun makes more sense.

[Jakko247]

(Original post by bon)
No idea why that post is warned.

A confluence of events - because a confluence implies at least two things (i.e. plural) merging.

And I wouldn't say a collusion of interests, because it's not the interests that are doing the colluding - James can collude in murder, but it's James that's doing the colluding with someone else. I suppose, though, if you really wanted to use collusion like that, the plural noun makes more sense.

Hmm okay, so am I right in saying that
'Event' alone cannot mean more than one event in the above context

It's hard to explain but for some reason it sounds proper and correct to say 'a confluence of event brought down the tsarist autocracy', with event standing in place of 3 events, but without the *s* making it plural

[bon]

(Original post by Jakko247)
Hmm okay, so am I right in saying that
'Event' alone cannot mean more than one event in the above context

It's hard to explain but for some reason it sounds proper and correct to say 'a confluence of event brought down the tsarist autocracy', with event standing in place of 3 events, but without the *s* making it plural

Yes I don't think you can use 'a confluence of event' to mean 3 events together.

The only time I can think of using the phrase would be if you were to say: 'a confluence of event and misfortune led to...'

Let's put it like this: a confluence of event gets 10 google hits (1 of which being this thread!).
a confluence of events gets 2,170,000.

Convinced?

[Jakko247]

(Original post by bon)
Yes I don't think you can use 'a confluence of event' to mean 3 events together.

The only time I can think of using the phrase would be if you were to say: 'a confluence of event and misfortune led to...'

Let's put it like this: a confluence of event gets 10 google hits (1 of which being this thread!).
a confluence of events gets 2,170,000.

Convinced?

Haha yeah, that's what I meant 'a confluence of event and opportunity' it sounds right, right :P?

Cheers for the help

[Kolya]

(Original post by bon)
He cites an example of such an error: "The public is naturally much impressed by this evidence, and in considering it do not make the necessary allowances.—Times."

I don't see why there is anything wrong with that; I doubt the vast majority of native speakers would think twice about the construction. (I certainly didn't until it was pointed out.)

[bon]

(Original post by Kolya)
I don't see why there is anything wrong with that; I doubt the vast majority of native speakers would think twice about the construction. (I certainly didn't until it was pointed out.)

It's the fact that the number of the noun has changed in the space of a sentence [the public - singular - is; the public - incorrectly, now plural - do]. I agree that you probably wouldn't even notice if someone did that, but I disagree that it's legitimate to change the number of a noun for no reason.

An example of a verb that changes more weirdly serves to illustrate this: Manchester United are very wealthy and is fun to watch. I think I would notice that - it's just that 'do' and 'does' are quite similar.

[Smashing]

My teacher put a ring around it, so I'm guessing something's up?

'The primary function of personal thought for Winston and Offred is the creation of a private world; a secret place in which they can probe and question the validity of the regime under which they live.'

Feedback appreciated.

[Rob19]

I heard it was queer.

[Jingers]

Nothing.

BTW, handmaid's tale. lol.

[Smashing]

(Original post by Jingers)
Nothing.

BTW, handmaid's tale. lol.

Don't be mean.

And thanks

[Muppety_Kid]

(Original post by Smashing)
My teacher put a ring around it, so I'm guessing something's up?

'The primary function of personal thought for Winston and Offred is the creation of a private world; a secret place in which they can probe and question the validity of the regime under which they live.'

Feedback appreciated.

Semicolons are generally used in places where a full stop or comma would be appropriate - that's the best test I've found for whether they work!

In your case, the first part is fine, but after the semicolon (make it a full stop for now), you'd have:

A secret place in which they can probe and question the validity of the regime under which they live.

Is this 1984 by any chance? Anyway, that doesn't make sense as a sentence - I can't give you all of the terminology to explain why it's wrong grammatically, but I just know it is.

Instead of a semicolon, you could use a colon if you're writing in the sense "a private world. What I mean by 'a private world' is a secret place...". Alternatively, you could opt for a comma if you wanted the "a secret place..." to sound more like a description/elaboration rather than a definition.

Hope this helps.

[Discudvayne]

Wooooh Handmaid's Tale and 1984!!!!! I didn't see anything wrong with the semi-colon btw.