6 ms·

The Beatles are sounds more correct to me.

INTPenis 7y ago
What about Nirvana? Or Metallica? I think in the case of "The Beatles" it's clear cut because it sounds like you're talking about insects. But in other cases I think both sound ok because you could either be talking about a group of people, or a movement or a brand.
- nfg 7y ago
  All I can say as a speaker of non-US English is that “Metallica is” and “Nirvana is” still sound completely wrong to my ear.
  - vanderZwan 7y ago
    As non-native speaker I think I'd intuitively go with “Metallica is” and “Nirvana is”, but “The Beatles are”. I guess my brain is more wired towards whether the name itself is plural or not.
    - ajuc 7y ago
      Same, but I realized I'm just going with my native language rules on that one.
    - TulliusCicero 7y ago
      Congrats, you're American.
    - roelschroeven 7y ago
      What about "Dire Straits"? Also plural, but grammatically completely different from "The Beatles" (by which I mean: you could say that John Lennon was a Beatle, but you can't refer to Mark Knopfler as a Dire Strait)
      - willyt 7y ago
        Dire Straits is something that happens to you, it would be used in this context, 'He was in dire straits' meaning, in big trouble of some kind. The straits in question are not a plural of an individual living thing like a Beatle. So I would say 'Dire Straits is a band'. I'm a native British English speaker, that sounds right to me, but my generation weren't formally taught grammar at school so I can't back that up with any fancy grammar words!
  - waylandsmithers 7y ago
    Wait wait but what if Nirvana was a one-person band? OR what if you don't know?
- phreack 7y ago
  Since there appear to be no right answers and I love this topic, I feel the band's name should play a big role in its plurality. I would never say that 'Queen are a band' but I would also not feel like 'The Beatles is a band'. At gun point though, I'd choose the latter.
- rukuu001 7y ago
  What happens in my brain: - "The Beatles are..." This means we're talking about those 4 guys in The Beatles - "Metallica is..." Means we're talking about the band, not the 4 dudes. And when that change happens (inferring the band vs inferring the band members) it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence, so nothing else matters.
  - KMag 7y ago
    > Metallica ... nothing else matters I see what you did there.

What about Nirvana? Or Metallica? I think in the case of "The Beatles" it's clear cut because it sounds like you're talking about insects. But in other cases I think both sound ok because you could either be talking about a group of people, or a movement or a brand.

nfg 7y ago
All I can say as a speaker of non-US English is that “Metallica is” and “Nirvana is” still sound completely wrong to my ear.
- vanderZwan 7y ago
  As non-native speaker I think I'd intuitively go with “Metallica is” and “Nirvana is”, but “The Beatles are”. I guess my brain is more wired towards whether the name itself is plural or not.
  - ajuc 7y ago
    Same, but I realized I'm just going with my native language rules on that one.
  - TulliusCicero 7y ago
    Congrats, you're American.
  - roelschroeven 7y ago
    What about "Dire Straits"? Also plural, but grammatically completely different from "The Beatles" (by which I mean: you could say that John Lennon was a Beatle, but you can't refer to Mark Knopfler as a Dire Strait)
    - willyt 7y ago
      Dire Straits is something that happens to you, it would be used in this context, 'He was in dire straits' meaning, in big trouble of some kind. The straits in question are not a plural of an individual living thing like a Beatle. So I would say 'Dire Straits is a band'. I'm a native British English speaker, that sounds right to me, but my generation weren't formally taught grammar at school so I can't back that up with any fancy grammar words!
- waylandsmithers 7y ago
  Wait wait but what if Nirvana was a one-person band? OR what if you don't know?
phreack 7y ago
Since there appear to be no right answers and I love this topic, I feel the band's name should play a big role in its plurality. I would never say that 'Queen are a band' but I would also not feel like 'The Beatles is a band'. At gun point though, I'd choose the latter.
rukuu001 7y ago
What happens in my brain: - "The Beatles are..." This means we're talking about those 4 guys in The Beatles - "Metallica is..." Means we're talking about the band, not the 4 dudes. And when that change happens (inferring the band vs inferring the band members) it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence, so nothing else matters.
- KMag 7y ago
  > Metallica ... nothing else matters I see what you did there.