Germany is rich and Germany are poor

Question

I don't know if i understand it in the right way. "Germany is rich" means that Germany is rich as a single unit but it does not mean that every man in Germany is rich. The man would only be rich if he is considered in coherency with Germany.

"Germany are poor" now means that almost every man is not rich in Germany...except for a few exemptions.

Thanks for your help in advance

MrPedantic · Accepted Answer

Stylish screen-name, ElaMiNaTo.

'Germany is rich' means 'Germany is rich compared to other nations', i.e. in terms of its GDP etc. It gives us no information about the wealth of any particular German, or of the distribution of wealth within Germany.

The same applies to 'Germany is poor'.

(You wouldn't say 'Germany are poor', by the way, except in a sporting context, e.g.

'Germany are very poor tonight' - meaning 'the German football team is playing very badly tonight'.)

MrP

Anonymous · Answer

here is a little abridgement of Collin Cobuild English Grammar:

"When you use a collective noun, you can use either a single verb or a plural verb
after it.

You choose a singular verb if you think of the group as a single unit, and a plural verb if
you think of the group as a number of individuals."

so when I say "Germany are poor" and i think of the individuals in Germany, the sentence must be correct when I refer to the explanation of the Grammar book or am I wrong ?

Teacher Eric · Answer

Mr Pedantic,

Since I use American English, I can't say I agree with you that you can use "are" with Germany in a sporting context. The noun being referred to is just a single team so it needs an "is". In American English, it's perfectly fine to say "L.A. is favored over Detroit" or "the Lakers are favored over the Pistons". To say L.A. are favored over Detroit sounds strange.

But I believe in British English, many collective nouns are considered plural.

1. Manchester United are playing great this year.
2. The government are worried.
3. The team have several injured players.
4. Aston Martin have a new model.

I'm no expert in British English so please forgive me if the sentences I listed are wrong.

Teacher Eric · Answer

ElaMiNaTo,

Since Cobuild says it's okay to use either a singular or plural verb with collective nouns then it must be ok. But I've never encountered any American who used a plural verb with a collective noun, not even in a sporting context. I may be wrong but I think Cobuild uses British English and not American English.

MrPedantic · Answer

Hello ElaMiNaTo, hello Teacher E.,

I'm sorry, my answer was slightly confusing.

A collective noun is the name for a set of 'something'. Without the 'something', the collective noun cannot exist. You can't have a 'flock' without 'sheep'.

'Germany' however is primarily the name for a geographical area. Although we can use 'Germany' to mean 'the German people' (or 'the people who live in Germany'), this is really only a figure of speech. If there were no people in Germany, 'Germany' would still exist. So it's not a true collective noun.

Rather, Germany in a political, economic, historical, or geographical context is a singular noun, and always takes a singular verb. This is the case both in AmE and BrE, e.g.

'Germany is a rich country.'
'Germany is a member of NATO.'
'A united Germany.'
'Germany has relatively little access to the sea.'
'Germany goes to the polls next Wednesday.'
'Germany is famous for its vast forests.'

('Germany' or 'Japan' in a sporting context would simply be convenient labels for 'the German team', 'the Japanese team'. British sports commentators often use these labels with plural forms of the verb, as in 'Germany are playing badly tonight'.)

MrP

Germany is rich and Germany are poor

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions