Thank you.
2006-11-21 12:18:37 · 10 answers · asked by Whos that girl... 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
As a writer i think it is were, however, was seems more appropriate...idk...here's part of it: when the colonial militia was lined in a military position
2006-11-21 12:58:28 · update #1
idk but were sounds better and ill go w/ my intuition
2006-11-21 12:59:52 · update #2
Once as a graduate student, I wrote a paper on strategy on both sides of the Civil War. I got a really bad grade because I kept saying stuff like, "The Union, they" My professor was kind enough to let me know, not only in the paper, but in class as well, that the proper identification was, "the union, it". Go with was.
2006-11-21 13:00:24 · answer #1 · answered by derek1836 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
11/23 ADDITION Given the sentence you did, ". . .when the colonial militia was lined in a military position. . ." WAS is correct because you are referring to a singular noun.
It depends on the rest of the sentence.
EXAMPLES:
A colonial militia WAS formed in New Hampshire. (refers to a singular noun)
The colonial militia WERE groups of men from each colony.
Simple sentence: Militia were groups.
(Can be transposed to:)
Groups of men from each colony WERE the colonial militia.
Simple sentence: Groups were militia.
(Militia & groups are the same thing. "Groups" indicate plural, therefore you treat "Militia" as a plural with WERE.)
2006-11-21 21:13:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
need to see the complete sentence to properly evaluate what it should be. Militia being a plural collective noun, depending on the rest of the sentence it could go either way.
The militia were tired and beaten. past tense
The militia was harangued and beaten by the enemy forces.
"were" needs no object while "was" does need a object to perform onto. The exception of "was" and no object in the sentence is when the context is considered and the object implied.
In any case sticking to one or the other in context will show you the light.
2006-11-21 20:45:12 · answer #3 · answered by fillblanks 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The colonia militia "was" is correct because the noun is singular. One militia.
"With collective nouns use a singular pronoun to replace a singular collective noun if you are referring to the whole group as a unit."
The militia increased its watchfulness.
2006-11-21 20:23:55 · answer #4 · answered by inquirer 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The answer very much depends where you are from. The standard usage in British English (and many commonwealth countries) would be 'were'. American standards tend to use 'was', viewing the the collective as a single unit. I will go ahead and assume you're american, since most people here seem to be, and recommend 'was'.
2006-11-22 07:48:01 · answer #5 · answered by Patrick 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Both are correct, depends on the usage. ' Were ' implies single individuals in a body. ' Was ' implies the body as a unit of force. There's a difference in perception alluding to the same thing.
2006-11-21 20:22:40 · answer #6 · answered by vanamont7 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are speaking of the militia as a unit (singular) so it should be "was".
If you speak of the members of the militia (plural) it should be "were".
2006-11-21 21:39:11 · answer #7 · answered by jpbofohio 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes, but isn't militia a collective noun? not sure, but i think it would be right to say the militia were.
2006-11-21 20:29:18 · answer #8 · answered by waterlin 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
it depends on the context of the rest of the sentence
2006-11-21 20:22:58 · answer #9 · answered by autumn 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i think it's "was"
2006-11-21 20:21:43 · answer #10 · answered by simply.me 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋