staff have or has ?

[Handley_Page]

OK, here's a question for all those who actually understand English language, 'cos' this is baffling me.

Firstly the nature of the problem as seen by my copy of Word2003 with UK English as the default language. These signs can be seen in various offices up and down the land.

Our staff have the right to work without fear, intimidation or harassment which will not be tolerated.

The question is that my Word WP reckons if should be:

staff has OR:
staffs have

Which, to my mind is wrong, as "staff" (as in employees) is a singular word for a collective.
Were it to be a staff as in a rod or stick (eg., staff of office), then the first might be correct.
Were the employees to be in multiple groups, the second might be appropriate.

Comments on this subject would be appreciated.

 

[damppanties]

No claims to understanding English (can anyone claim to do that really?) but as I understand, since 'staff' is a singular word for a collective as you pointed out, it should be 'has'. Consider 'hair'. Her hair was wet or her hair were wet?

When you say a group was sitting around the conference table, you use the same principle, whatever it is. The 'group was' and the 'groups were'.

 

[sr71plt]

Staff takes the singular in the U.S. system and plural in the British system.

 

[R. Richard]

Staff takes the singular in the U.S. system and plural in the British system.

For once, I can agree with sr71plt. English is not a language, with fixed rules and grammar. It's a system, "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." The English have a system that they call English. The Americans have a system that they call English. The two identically named systems are far from identical and no one really knows the rules or grammar for either system.
.

 

[damppanties]

Staff takes the singular in the U.S. system and plural in the British system.

Oh wow. I did not know that. Is that the way with, say, a pride of lions or a group of people?

 

[sr71plt]

Oh wow. I did not know that. Is that the way with, say, a pride of lions or a group of people?

beats me. It's the way it is with "staff."

 

[Brunne]

Heck, just call them 'employees' - it's a little easier

 

[desertslave]

This might help:

http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/si...ect-and-verb-agreement-with-collective-nouns/

 

[sr71plt]

This might help:

http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/si...ect-and-verb-agreement-with-collective-nouns/

No, not really. That is purely American system guidance. The point is not what is right in the American idiom but that the American idiom on this term is different from the British idom. So this reference is irrelevant to the point.

 

[SweetMaj]

To me "Our Staff have" sounds incorrect, but then again I'm danish.

 

[sr71plt]

To me it sounds incorrect too. But I'm American. *Sigh* Why is it so hard just to accept that there are differences in the U.S. system and the British system? There are points of grammar that really aren't up for an individual vote or preference by personal taste.

 

[Weird Harold]

Our staff have the right to work without fear, intimidation or harassment which will not be tolerated.

In addition to the differences in American vs British usages, there is the problem of an "implied subject" to deal with. I would read your example as,

[The individual members of] Our staff have the right to work without fear, intimidation or harassment which will not be tolerated.

Whereas, the following would imply a singular "staff."

Our staff [as a group] does not work on Sundays or Holidays

 

[R. Richard]

Our staff [as a group] does not work on Sundays or Holidays

I have no problem with that. However, there is that matter of your staff of layabouts not working during weekdays either. Tighten it up, or we replace you with a very inefficient machine, at a great increase in efficiency.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Staff takes the singular in the U.S. system and plural in the British system.

Well, not actually. 'The staff has' is defined in Fowler's Modern Usage as a singular collective noun. Why do you pontificate without knowledge?

Again, even in the US usage, 'staff' becomes plural if you drop the definite article and say, 'staff have expressed complaints. . .'

Perhaps you're thinking of the wooden stick.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

To me "Our Staff have" sounds incorrect, but then again I'm danish. [/QUOTE

Should be 'have' in US and UK - the group is singular but the management is plural.
]
You can use a plural possessive with 'staff' whilst still retaining the singular of a 'group'.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, not actually. 'The staff has' is defined in Fowler's Modern Usage as a singular collective noun. Why do you pontificate without knowledge?

Again, even in the US usage, 'staff' becomes plural if you drop the definite article and say, 'staff have expressed complaints. . .'

Perhaps you're thinking of the wooden stick.

A. Fowler is based on the British system (dimwit).

B. There's no such cited definition in my copy of Fowler's Modern English Usage (revised by Sir Ernest Gowers--British. Get it?).

The entry for "staff" (p. 583) in my edition is, in total: (which is an entirely different staff altogether)

staff, stave. 1. In all modern senses the plural of staff is staffs; but from the archaic plural staves has come the back-formation stave, which has taken the place of staff in music and cooperage. 2. For s. of life see SOBRIQUETS.

But writers in the U.S. system can let you tie them in knots, or they can just go with what is in actual usage. Of course it's their choice.

 

[sr71plt]

You can use a plural possessive with 'staff' whilst still retaining the singular of a 'group'.

While (not "whilst") we're still on the differences between U.S. and British usage, "whilst" is British usage. In U.S. publishing, an editor would change this to "while."

(So, "rots of ruck" following zany Elfin down one of her garden paths.)

 

[ishtat]

Mebbe the Brits got there plural usage from the 23rd Psalm: "thy staff they comfort me"

Just trying to be helpful, though I suspect that sr71plt might prefer to apply both rod and staff, at least to Elfin.

 

[sr71plt]

Mebbe the Brits got there plural usage from the 23rd Psalm: "thy staff they comfort me"

Just trying to be helpful, though I suspect that sr71plt might prefer to apply both rod and staff, at least to Elfin.

I'd bet that's the King James (ergo, British) version if I had to, but I don't. You bastardized the phrase, which is "thy rod and thy staff [ergo plural] they comfort me."

(Yep, I gots a variety of Bibles on my shelves too. Did you pick up that "just make it up" technique from Elfin?)

 

[ishtat]

Commas & Celts

I'd bet that's the King James (ergo, British) version if I had to, but I don't. You bastardized the phrase, which is "thy rod and thy staff [ergo plural] they comfort me."

(Yep, I gots a variety of Bibles on my shelves too. Did you pick up that "just make it up" technique from Elfin?)

I'm not sure what Elfin and bastardisation have to do with the case but it may amuse one or two people to know how I arrived at it:

I recalled the verse in my first (spoken) language, the quotation being:

" Ie pe rhodion ar hyn glyn cysgod
angau, nid afauf nived: yr wgt ti
a mi, wialen a'th flon am cysurant.

My spelling is probably a bit wonky and there definitely should be a circumflex over the y in hyn, but I don't write Welsh often, or all that well.

From that thought I checked it against the RSV 1952 which is the authorized amendment of the American Standard Version 1901. I then pruned thy rod to effect the different meaning of staff and left out the comma to change the emphasis slightly.

Doubtless most lit people will be aware that had I gone straight to the KJV I wouldn't have had to worry about the comma because that version has none.

 

[ishtat]

Commas & Celts

I'd bet that's the King James (ergo, British) version if I had to, but I don't. You bastardized the phrase, which is "thy rod and thy staff [ergo plural] they comfort me."

(Yep, I gots a variety of Bibles on my shelves too. Did you pick up that "just make it up" technique from Elfin?)

I'm not sure what Elfin and bastardisation have to do with the case but it may amuse one or two people to know how I arrived at it:

I recalled the verse in my first (spoken) language, the quotation being:

" Ie pe rhodion ar hyn glyn cysgod
angau, nid afauf nived: yr wgt ti
a mi, wialen a'th flon am cysurant.

My spelling is probably a bit wonky and there definitely should be a circumflex over the y in hyn, but I don't write Welsh often, or all that well.

From that thought I checked it against the RSV 1952 which is the authorized amendment of the American Standard Version 1901. I then pruned thy rod to effect the different meaning of staff and left out the comma to change the emphasis slightly.

Doubtless most lit people will be aware that had I gone straight to the KJV I wouldn't have had to worry about the comma because that version has none.

 

[Handley_Page]

I always thought that "staff" in this case meant "staff of Office".

 

[sr71plt]

From that thought I checked it against the RSV 1952 which is the authorized amendment of the American Standard Version 1901. I then pruned thy rod to effect the different meaning of staff and left out the comma to change the emphasis slightly.

I quote the passage in the 1952 RSV edition now sitting in my lap:

Verse 4:

"Even though I walk through the
valley of the shadow of death,
I fear no evil,
for thou art with me;
thy rod and thy staff,
they comfort me."

No comma (and even in versions that had a comma, it would be substituting for "and").

So, I guess I can only answer with a "huh"?

The presence of the two nouns, requiring the plural "they," is quite obvious. To leave out "rod" is a bastardization of what actually was written--in every version of the Bible that I have.

(Didn't believe me about the part of having several versions of the Bible on my bookshelves, did you?" Shall we go with the Tyndale New Living Translation Bible, which avoids the issue altogether? "Your rod and your staff / protect and comfort me." Or the Good News Bible: "Your shepherd's rod and staff protect me." Or how about the New Oxford Bible: the familiar "thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.")

The point about Elfin is that she does this all of the time--either bastardizes the source she's citing to match her zany point or makes up her premise altogether. I suspect she just made up a citation here, because I can't find what she cites from Fowler in Fowler at all. Perhaps she can provide evidence it's in Fowler. I have it right here; all she need do is point to where it is.

Of course Elfin's citation was irrelevant from the get go. You can't cite a British system authority (Fowler) for U.S. system usage--unless, of course, the source discusses the differences, with Fowler doesn't. Just another example of half-baked Elfinisms.

 

[sr71plt]

I always thought that "staff" in this case meant "staff of Office".

Yep, you're right. It is. And the answer (already given) is that the U.S. and British systems are different on this term.

 

[anon606]

I'm enjoying that although they have the right to work without fear or intimidation, it is only harassment that won't be tolerated.