These Sentences Need Group Therapy by Rob Kyff on Creators.com

Recently

Merry 'Pharmers' and Jolly Ranchers Whenever I hear the pharmaceutical industry described as "Big Pharm," I can't help picturing tractors cultivating acres of Celebrex as silos filled with Viagra loom in the background. (Alternative name for Big Pharm: "Tyrannosaurus Rx.…Read more. Is a Blocked Highway 'Impassible' or 'Impassable'? Q: When I look up "impassible" in the online dictionaries, the definitions are typically "not subject to suffering or pain; unfeeling." But when I check for usage examples, most deal with roads made impassible, as by bad weather. …Read more. Deceivers 'Euph'anize the Language Lord Spratley: Say, did you know that euphemisms help people say what they don't want to say? Lord Stratley: You don't say! Euphemisms are linguistic brooms that try to sweep everything — from taxes to sex to baldness — under the rug (in …Read more. 'Irregardless' Can Be 'Ir'- itating Q: The Oxford English Dictionary listing for the word "irregardless" cites the meaning as "regardless." I recollected that the prefix "ir-" negated/reversed the meaning of the word. I'm confused about this. Please …Read more.

Q: While completing a summer camp evaluation survey, I was not sure whether to use a singular or plural verb for this sentence: "The staff (was/were) very friendly throughout the session." Which is correct? — Leonard Slutsky, Glastonbury, Conn.

A: Glad to hear you were, literally, "a happy camper"!

You should choose a singular or plural verb for collective nouns, such as "staff," "team," "family" and "committee," based on whether you're considering the group as a single unit or as a collection of individuals.

Grammarians refer to this principle as "notional agreement," the kind of esoteric phrase that earns them low scores for user-friendliness on evaluation surveys. They simply mean that your verb should agree with your notion of how the group is functioning in your sentence.

So, if you were thinking mostly of the staff's friendliness when it was acting as a unit, such as during the staff versus campers tug-of-war or the big closing number at the "Staff Follies," you'd say "the staff was friendly."

But if you were thinking mostly of acts of friendliness by distinct individuals, such as a congenial food server, a cordial lifeguard or an amicable morning bugler, you'd say "the staff were friendly."

Americans tend to favor singular verbs with collective nouns ("team is skilled," "government is acting"), while the Brits tend to use plural verbs ("team are skilled," "government are acting"), which leads Americans to give Brits low scores for sanity.

Q: A pro hockey coach recently said, "We have a tall task going against a good team who is playing well." I think "that" would be a better word than "who." What do you think? — Art Frackenpohl, Potsdam, N.Y.

A: Hey, another question involving collective nouns!

Normally, I prefer the use of "who" rather than "that" to describe human beings.

But, in this case, I'm with you. I'd choose "that" because of — ta-da! — notional agreement.

By saying "IS playing well," the coach indicated he was thinking of the team as a single unit, not a collection of individuals. And because "who" denotes people, it simply sounds odd to refer to such an entity as "who."

But if the coach had said "ARE playing well," indicating he was thinking of the team as a collection of individuals, "who" would be the better choice.

Perhaps, by choosing "who," the hockey coach was offering a mischievous spoof of notional agreement. Call him "puckish."

Rob Kyff, a teacher and writer in West Hartford, Conn., invites your language sightings. Send your reports of misuse and abuse, as well as examples of good writing, via e-mail to Wordguy@aol.com or by regular mail to Rob Kyff, Creators Syndicate, 5777 W. Century Blvd., Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90045. To find out more about Rob Kyff and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.