American and British English grammatical differences#Subject-verb agreement

In British English (BrE), collective nouns can take either singular (formal agreement) or plural (notional agreement) verb forms, according to whether the emphasis is on the body as a whole or on the individual members, respectively; compare a committee was appointed with the committee were unable to agree.{{cite book |last1=Peters |first1=Pam |title=The Cambridge guide to English usage |date=2004 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge |isbn=9780511487040 |ref=peters2004}}{{rp|23}}{{cite book|author=Houghton Mifflin Company|title=The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xb6ie6PqYhwC&pg=PA94|access-date=29 June 2014|year=2006|publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt|isbn=0-618-60499-5|pages=94–}} The term the Government always takes a plural verb in British civil service convention, perhaps to emphasise the principle of cabinet collective responsibility.Instructions to Secretaries of Committees, Cabinet Office, nd Compare also the following lines of Elvis Costello's song "Oliver's Army": Oliver's Army is here to stay / Oliver's Army are on their way . Some of these nouns, for example staff,{{r|peters2004|p=24}} actually combine with plural verbs most of the time.

In American English (AmE), collective nouns are almost always singular in construction: the committee was unable to agree. However, when a speaker wishes to emphasize that the individuals are acting separately, a plural pronoun may be employed with a singular or plural verb: the team takes their seats, rather than the team takes its seats. Such a sentence would most likely be recast as the team members take their seats.Chapman, James A. Grammar and Composition IV. 3d ed. Pensacola: A Beka Book, 2002. With exceptions such as usage in The New York Times, the names of sports teams are usually treated as plurals even if the form of the name is singular."The names of sports teams, on the other hand, are treated as plurals, regardless of the form of that name."[http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/plurals.htm#sports]

The difference occurs for all nouns of multitude, both general terms such as team and company and proper nouns (for example where a place name is used to refer to a sports team). For instance,

{{blockquote|BrE: SuperHeavy is a band that shouldn't work or First Aid Kit are a band full of contradictions;{{cite news|last=Savage|first=Mark|title=Mick Jagger on SuperHeavy: 'Everyone subsumed their egos'|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-14901214|access-date=28 May 2014|newspaper=BBC News|date=14 September 2011}}{{cite news|last=Sweeney|first=Sabrina|title=First Aid Kit: A band of contradictions|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-20407116|access-date=28 May 2014|newspaper=BBC News|date=22 November 2012}} AmE: The Clash is a well-known band.
BrE: FC Red Bull Salzburg is an Austrian association football club; AmE: The New York Red Bulls are an American soccer team.}}

Proper nouns that are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE; for example, The Beatles are a well-known band; The Diamondbacks are the champions, with one major exception: in American English, the United States is almost universally used with a singular verb. Although the construction the United States are was more common early in the history of the country, as the singular federal government exercised more authority and a singular national identity developed (especially following the American Civil War), it became standard to treat the United States as a singular noun.{{cite book |last=Winik |first=Jay |title=April 1865: The month that saved America |url=https://archive.org/details/april1865montht000wini/page/379 |url-access=registration |year=2001 |publisher=Harper |location=New York |pages=[https://archive.org/details/april1865montht000wini/page/379 379.] |isbn=978-0-06-018723-1 }}

{{See also|English irregular verbs}}

• The past tense and past participle of the verbs learn, spoil, spell, burn, dream, smell, spill, leap, and others, can be formed with -t (learnt, spoilt, etc.) or with the regular -ed (learned, spoiled, etc.). In BrE, both irregular and regular forms are current, but for some words (such as smelt and leapt) there is a strong tendency towards the irregular forms, especially by users of Received Pronunciation.{{citation needed|date=April 2017}} For other words (such as dreamed, leaned, and learned{{r|peters2004|pp=165, 316}}) the regular forms are somewhat more common.
  The t endings may be encountered frequently in older American texts, especially poetry. Usage may vary when the past participles are used as adjectives, as in burnt toast. (The two-syllable form learnèd {{IPAc-en|ˈ|l|ɜːr|n|ɪ|d}}, usually written without the accent, is used as an adjective to mean "educated" or to refer to academic institutions in both BrE and AmE.) Finally, the past tense and past participle of dwell and kneel are more commonly dwelt and knelt in both standards, with dwelled and kneeled as common variants in the US but not in the UK.
• Lit as the past tense of light is more common than lighted in the UK; American English uses lit to mean "set afire" / "kindled" / "made to emit light" but lighted to mean "cast light upon" (e.g., "The stagehand lighted the set and then lit a cigarette.").{{r|peters2004|p=322}} Conversely, British English favours fitted as the past tense of fit generally, whereas the preference of American English is more complex: AmE prefers fitted for the metaphorical sense of having made an object [adjective-]"fit" (i.e., suited) for a purpose; in spatial transitive contexts, AmE uses fitted for the sense of having made an object conform to an unchanged object that it surrounds (e.g., "fitted X around Y") but fit for the sense of having made an object conform to an unchanged object that surrounds it (e.g., "fit[-past] X into Y"); and for the spatial senses (both intransitive and transitive) of having been matching with respect to contour, with no alteration of either object implied, AmE prefers fit ("The clothes [past-]fit."; "The clothes [past-]fit me well.").{{r|peters2004|p=208}}
• The past tense of spit "expectorate" is spat in BrE, spit or spat in AmE.{{r|peters2004|p=512}} AmE typically has spat in figurative contexts, for example, "He spat out the name with a sneer", or in the context of expectoration of an object that is not saliva, for example, "He spat out the foul-tasting fish" but spit for "expectorated" when it refers only to the expulsion of phlegm or saliva.
• The past participle of saw is normally sawn in BrE and sawed in AmE (as in sawn-off/sawed-off shotgun).{{r|peters2004|p=487}}
• The past participle gotten is rarely used in modern BrE, which generally uses got except when fixed in old expressions such as ill-gotten gains and in the minority of dialects that retain the older form. The American dictionary Merriam-Webster, however, lists "gotten" as a standard past participle of "get." According to the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, "The form gotten is not used in British English but is very common in North American English"{{citation needed|date=May 2017}}
• AmE, but not BrE, has forgot as a less common alternative to forgotten for the past participle of forget.
• AmE further allows other irregular verbs, such as dive (dove){{Cite web|url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dive|title=Definition of DIVE|website=www.merriam-webster.com|language=en|access-date=1 April 2019}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dive|title=the definition of dive|website=www.dictionary.com|language=en|access-date=1 April 2019}} or sneak (snuck),{{Cite web|url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sneak|title=Definition of SNEAK|website=www.merriam-webster.com|language=en|access-date=1 April 2019}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sneak|title=the definition of sneak|website=www.dictionary.com|language=en|access-date=1 April 2019}} and often mixes the preterite and past participle forms (spring–sprang, US also spring–sprung),[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spring?s=t Spring | Define Spring at Dictionary.com][http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spring Spring - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary] sometimes forcing verbs such as shrink (shrank–shrunk) to have a further form, thus shrunk–shrunken.[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shrink?s=t Shrink | Define Shrink at Dictionary.com][http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shrink Shrink - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary] These uses are often considered nonstandard; the AP Stylebook in AmE treats some irregular verbs as colloquialisms, insisting on the regular forms for the past tense of dive, plead and sneak. Dove and snuck are usually considered nonstandard in Britain, although dove exists in some British dialects and snuck is occasionally found in British speech.

• In BrE, have got or have can be used for possession and have got to and have to can be used for the modal of necessity. The forms that include got are usually used in informal contexts and the forms without got in contexts that are more formal. In American speech the form without got is used more than in the UK, although the form with got is often used for emphasis. Colloquial AmE informally uses got as a finite verb for these meanings—for example, I got two cars, I got to go.
• In conditional sentences if clauses, US spoken usage often substitutes in the subordinate clause would and would have (usually shortened to [I]'d and would've) for the simple past and for the pluperfect (If you'd leave now, you'd be on time. / If I would have [would've] cooked the pie we could have [could've] had it for lunch as opposed to If you left now, you'd be on time. / If I had cooked the pie we could have had it for lunch). This tends to be avoided in writing because it is often still considered non-standard although such use of would is widespread in spoken US English in all sectors of society. Some reliable sources now label this usage as acceptable US English and no longer label it as colloquial.{{cite web |url=http://www.perfectyourenglish.com/writing/american-and-british-usage-2.htm |title=Conditional would is sometimes used in both clauses of an if-sentence. This is common in spoken American English. |publisher=Perfectyourenglish.com |access-date=7 November 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120624184735/http://www.perfectyourenglish.com/writing/american-and-british-usage-2.htm |archive-date=24 June 2012 |url-status=dead }}Pearson Longman, Longman Exams Dictionary, grammar guide:

It is possible to use would in both clauses in US English but not in British English: US: The blockades wouldn't happen if the police would be firmer with the strikers. Br: The blockades wouldn't happen if the police were firmer with the strikers. (There are situations where would is used in British English too in seemingly counterfactual conditions, but these can usually be interpreted as a modal use of would: If you would listen to me once in a while, you might learn something.){{cite web|url=http://www.lingua.org.uk/eq&a.html |title=NELL.links |publisher=Lingua.org.uk |access-date=7 November 2010}}{{cite web|url=http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=5478593&postcount=6 |title=To stress willingness of wish, you can use would or will in both clauses of the same sentence: If the band would rehearse more, they would play better. If the band will rehearse more, they will play better. Both mean the same. (based on the examples and explanations from Practical English Usage, Michael Swan, Oxford) |publisher=Forum.wordreference.com |date=2 August 2008 |access-date=7 November 2010}} In cases in which the action in the if clause takes place after that in the main clause, use of would in counterfactual conditions is, however, considered standard and correct usage in even formal UK and US usage: If it would make Bill happy, I'd [I would] give him the money.

• The "present subjunctive" (morphologically identical with the bare infinitive) is regularly used in AmE in mandative clauses (as in They suggested that he apply for the job). In BrE, this usage declined in the 20th century in favor of constructions such as They suggested that he should apply for the job (or even, more ambiguously, They suggested that he applied for the job). However, the mandative subjunctive has always been used in BrE, especially in formal writing.{{r|peters2004|pp=520 f.}}

• Shall is much more commonly used by the British than by modern-day Americans, who generally prefer will.{{cite book | author = American Heritage editorial staff | title = The American Heritage Book of English Usage | publisher = Houghton Mifflin | location = Boston | year = 1996 | isbn = 0395767865 | page = [https://archive.org/details/americanheritage00edi_4cp/page/33 33] | url-access = registration | url = https://archive.org/details/americanheritage00edi_4cp/page/33 }} Some prescriptions about the distinction exist, which are now esoteric in AmE. However shall is still common in American legal documents. Shan't is typically regarded by Americans as a stereotypical British construction; in AmE, it is almost invariably replaced by won't or am/are/is not going to or their contractions. In both British and American grammar, would and should have different meanings. However, in British grammar, it is also possible for should and would to have the same meaning, with a distinction only in terms of formality (should simply being more formal than would). For most Americans, this nuance has been lost, with would being used in both contexts;[https://web.archive.org/web/20090131155144/http://bartleby.com/64/C001/057.html § 57. should. 1. Grammar. The American Heritage Book of English Usage. 1996] for example, I should like to leave is no longer a formal way to say I would like to leave in modern AmE. Expressions like I should be happy to go are rather formal even in BrE.{{Citation needed|date=May 2011}}
• The periphrastic future "be going to" is about twice as frequent in AmE as in BrE.{{citation needed|date=May 2017}}
• Use of "do" as a pro-predicate is almost exclusively British usage.{{cite web |url=http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.com/2007/09/pro-predicate-do-and-verb-phrase.html |title=pro-predicate do and verb phrase ellipsis |date= September 27, 2007|access-date=7 December 2013}}

:*Example: "Did Frank love it?" — "He must have done."{{cite book|title=The Loved One|author=Evelyn Waugh|page=51|author-link=Evelyn Waugh}}

:The AmE response would be "He must have." omitting the form of "do". The BrE usage is commonly found with all forms of "do", for example:

:{{blockquote|I have done.
I haven't done.
I will do.
I might have done.
I could do.
I could have done.
I should do.
I should have done.}}

:Except in the negative, the initial pronoun may be omitted in informal speech.

The following verbs show differences in transitivity between BrE and AmE:

• agree: Transitive or intransitive in BrE, usually intransitive (except with objective clauses) in AmE (agree a contract/agree to or on a contract, but I agree that this is a good contract in both). However, in formal AmE and BrE legal writing one often sees constructions such as as may be agreed between the parties (rather than as may be agreed upon between the parties).
• appeal (as a decision): Usually intransitive in BrE (used with against) and transitive in AmE (appeal against the decision to the Court/appeal the decision to the Court).{{cite web|url=https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/appeal_2 |title=appeal verb (3) |publisher=Oxford Learner's Dictionaries |access-date=7 November 2010}}
• catch up ("to reach and overtake"): Transitive or intransitive in BrE, strictly intransitive in AmE (to catch somebody up/to catch up with somebody). A transitive form exists in AmE, with a different meaning: to catch somebody up means that the subject will help the object catch up, rather the opposite of the BrE transitive meaning.
• cater ("to provide food and service"): Intransitive in BrE, transitive or intransitive in AmE (to cater for a banquet/to cater a banquet).
• cater to ("to allow for a possibility"): to cater to the speaker not turning up. A British speaker would probably recast the sentence.
• claim: Sometimes intransitive in BrE (used with for), strictly transitive in AmE.
• meet: AmE uses intransitively meet followed by with to mean "to have a meeting with", as for business purposes (Yesterday we met with the CEO), and reserves transitive meet for the meanings "to be introduced to" (I want you to meet the CEO; she is such a fine lady), "to come together with (someone, somewhere)" (Meet the CEO at the train station), and "to have a casual encounter with". BrE uses transitive meet also to mean "to have a meeting with"; the construction meet with, which actually dates back to Middle English, appears to be coming back into use in Britain, despite some commentators who preferred to avoid confusion with meet with meaning "receive, undergo" (the proposal was met with disapproval). The construction meet up with (as in to meet up with someone), which originated in the US,{{r|peters2004|p=343}} has long been standard in both dialects.
• provide: Strictly monotransitive in BrE, monotransitive or ditransitive in AmE (provide somebody with something/provide somebody something).
• protest: In sense "oppose", intransitive in BrE, transitive in AmE (The workers protested against the decision/The workers protested the decision). The intransitive protest against in AmE means "to hold or participate in a demonstration against". The older sense "proclaim" is always transitive (protest one's innocence).
• visit: In BrE, the verb is transitive; AmE uses both visit and visit with where the object is a person or persons.
• write: In BrE, the indirect object of this verb usually requires the preposition to, for example, I'll write to my MP or I'll write to her (although it is not required in some situations, for example when an indirect object pronoun comes before a direct object noun, for example, I'll write her a letter). In AmE, write can be used monotransitively (I'll write my congressman; I'll write him).

• The verbs prevent and stop can be found in two different constructions: "prevent/stop someone from doing something" and "prevent/stop someone doing something". The latter is well established in BrE, but not in AmE.
• Some verbs can take either a to+infinitive construction or a gerund construction (for example, to start to do something/to start doing something). For example, the gerund is more common:
• In AmE than BrE, with start,{{r|peters2004|p=515}} begin,{{r|peters2004|p=67}} omit, enjoy;
• In BrE than AmE, with love,{{cite web|url=https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/love_2 |title=love verb (2) |publisher=Oxford Learner's Dictionaries |access-date=7 November 2010}} like, intend.p. 245.

{{More citations needed|section|date=July 2022}}

• Where a statement of intention involves two separate activities, speakers of BrE often use "to go and" plus bare infinitive while it is also acceptable for speakers of AmE to use "to go" plus bare infinitive. Thus, where BrE speakers would say "I'll go {{em|and}} take/have a bath", AmE speakers may also say "I'll go take/have a bath". (Both can also use the form "to go {{em|to}}" instead to suggest that the action might fail, as in "He went {{em|to}} take/have a bath, but the bathtub was full of children".) Similarly, "to come" plus bare infinitive is acceptable to speakers of AmE, but speakers of BrE would instead use "to come {{em|and}}" plus bare infinitive. Thus, where a speaker of AmE may say "come see what I bought", BrE and some AmE speakers would say "come {{em|and}} see what I've bought" (notice the present perfect: a common British preference).{{cite web|title=Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary|url=http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/go_1#go_1|access-date=25 December 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140219223829/http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/go_1#go_1|archive-date=19 February 2014|url-status=dead}}
• Use of prepositions before days denoted by a single word. The British say She resigned on Thursday, but Americans often say She resigned Thursday although both forms are common in American usage. Occasionally, the preposition is also absent when referring to months: I'll be here December (although this usage is generally limited to colloquial speech).
• In the UK, from is used with single dates and times more often than in the United States. British speakers and writers may say the new museum will be open from Tuesday, but Americans most likely say the new museum will be open starting or on Tuesday. (This difference does not apply to phrases of the pattern from A to B, which are used in both BrE and AmE.) A variation or alternative of that is the mostly-American the play opens Tuesday and the mostly-British the play opens on Tuesday.
• American legislators and lawyers always use the preposition of between the name of a legislative act and the year it was passed, but their British counterparts do not. Compare Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The year preceding the short title is also common (e.g., 19xx