Is the phrase "United States" singular or plural?
Most people say "the United States is" but in the U.S. Constitution it says:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Probably by the time the US Constitution was writen, the Americans were much more aware of the fact that their nation consisted of a confederation of independent states, and as consequence US was plural whereas as the time passed, USA became more centralized, the states lost sovereign (specially the South) that was ceded to Washington and thus USA began to be perceived as a singular entity.
We've gone singular ever since the Civil War, when the sovereignity of the federal government was firmly established over the states. Before that it was always plural.
The United States is a a sole unit made up over 50 independent sub units, therefore the United States is singular, in the sense that it is a single unit.
Singular can also mean remarkable and exceptional, which no doubt the United States surely is, and it can also mean unique, which again the United States may well be, but singular can also mean odd and unusual in a weird sort of way...well, I'm not too sure about that being applicable to the United States....how about you guys?
Do you think the United States is odd and unusual in a weird sort of way? In a nice way, perhaps.....
It is singular as it is describing one group. As the States are described collectively it is a singular noun. The one group of states or the united stutes
I'd say singular, as we are one country.
But I'd also take other languages into question. In Spanish, they say los Estados Unidos (EE.UU), which is plural, and I'm sure other languages agree.
So technically, since nothing really changed as far as state sovereignty after the civil war, I'd say plural.
The USA is a republic whose name, as such, is a singular, compound proper noun.
Les états-unis sont pluriels.
<<Les états-unis sont pluriels.>>
No, it is not. States is plural, but it doesn't use a plural verb.
The United States is . . .
not The United States are . . .
In this way, it is much like The Great Plains
Though, The Great Palins are often incorectly treated as a plural form
The Great Plains is a region of the North American continent.
Not: The Great Plains are a region of the North American continent.
It really doesn't matter. The difference is so subtle that nobody would stop to correct you. 'Singular' is only slightly more correct.
"The United States is more than willing to..."
"The United States is full of..."
"The United States was founded in..."
etc
Americans usually think of the name "the United States" as singular and treat it as such when pairing it with a verb. It wasn't always so, as several have pointed out, but "the United States are" is now looked upon as a quaint usage that is no longer in vogue. Whether this is entirely logical is up for debate, but then, we have never been sticklers for absolute logic.
As far as I know, this pattern also applies to some other countries that happen to have plural names; regardless of the S at the end, I think of the United Arab Emirates as a single entity and would use "is" with it and not "are". This also goes for the Bahamas, as this excerpt from the US State Department site shows:
"The Bahamas is an independent member of the Commonwealth of Nations. It is a parliamentary democracy with regular elections. As a Commonwealth country, its political and legal traditions closely follow those of the United Kingdom. The Bahamas recognizes Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state, while an appointed Governor General serves as the Queen's representative in The Bahamas. A bicameral legislature enacts laws under the 1973 constitution."
Turks and Caicos is another example. You will see "is" used after the name, although as with the Bahamas. people try to fudge it by using "the islands of Turks and Caicos" which then allows them to use the plural "are". So it's a little bit of an uncomfortable thing in some names. But the United States is unequivocably singular for us, without any discomfort.
However, names like "the Virgin Islands" and "the Hawaiian Islands" retain their plurality, except when we just call the latter "Hawaii" and it goes back to being singular. So we aren't always consistent, and don't try to extrapolate some rule etched in stone from any of this!
If you refer to a collective related to the USA it can be plural:
The United States have a presence in Colombia. [ie, the military]
The United States are winning the game. [a sports team]
The United States are in Afghanistan.
<<The United States have a presence in Colombia. [ie, the military]
The United States are winning the game. [a sports team]
The United States are in Afghanistan.>>
I don't think I would accept those as correct, certainly not the last two. They sound the worst of the three.
I would say "The U.S. is winning the game".
and "The U.S. military is in Afghanistan".
and I would also say that "The United States has a presence in Colombia".
I deffinetly would not say the U.S. is in Afghanistan. That statement indicates that the United States itself is within the country of Afghanistan. I would tell a person making that statement that they had beter get an atlas and check again.
<<<<The United States have a presence in Colombia. [ie, the military]
The United States are winning the game. [a sports team]
The United States are in Afghanistan.>>
I don't think I would accept those as correct, certainly not the last two. They sound the worst of the three.
I would say "The U.S. is winning the game".
and "The U.S. military is in Afghanistan".
and I would also say that "The United States has a presence in Colombia". >>
If I'm recalling correctly, aren't these collective noun thingymabobs one one of the areas where British and American English differ?
As in the United kingdom the road traffic in the Bahamas keeps to the left side, and the judicial system is primarily modelled on that of this country, and of course the official language is English, even though much if it is quite noticeably accented towards the American, which is not surprising when you realise just how close it is to the American State of Florida.
You could say that in many ways the Bahamas is (notice the singular entity) a mini version of another group of islands....Great Britain.....but with the great advantage of having sunshine, palm trees and balmy Caribbean breezes (except during the occasional hurricane now and again).
On 11 December 1936 the ineffectual and weak King Edward VIII abdicated his position as Monarch when he became totally pissed off with the British Establishment (Government and Royal Household) which had resolutely refused point blank to acknowledge or recognise in any way at all his "romantic" relationship with a twice divorced, highly vocal, excessively self seeking social climbing American by the name of Wallis Simpson. He abdicated the Throne in favour of his younger brother who the succeeded as King George VI, father of our present Queen.
Edward (or David as he was known informally) married Wallis in France in June 1937 after both of them had been forced out of Britain - exiled in effect, banished from Britain for good and all, and the rest is history...two lives wasted in frivolity and face saving social whirls not amounting to anything really worthwhile.
As some kind of sop to this "disgraced" former King the British Establishment allowed him to retain the title of "Royal Highness", but in no way was this honour granted to his new wife - she was ater all a foreigner and one very much with "a past" - she merely became the Duchess of Windsor while he became His Royal Highness the Duke of Windsor.
Anyway, in 1940 the Duke of Windsor was appointed as Governor of the Bahamas - one of the less prestigious of any of the Colonial posts under the British Crown overseas, and a very safe distance away from the shores of the country which had rejected him, along with his missus.
His time in the Bahamas was spent very much like the rest of his life was - quite frivolous, sadly futile and engaged mostly in a social whirl of in consequential "high society" parties interspered with the ocasional opening of a school here or a new community centre there, and presiding over a round of functions which nobody could ever describe as being worthy of a former member of the British Royal Family, and an ex King at that....all quite ignominiously mundane and non earth-shattering, a punishment inflicted on the both of these people by a very resentful and completly unforgiving British Establishment of the period.