0

Taliban take key city close to Kabul as U.S. troops arrive to assist evacuations

Taliban advances in Afghanistan, U.S. and Britain to evacuate embassies

They are titles of Reuters' news. I can't understand why the former verb 'take' is used as a singular. In the context the word Taliban doesn't seem to be individual soldiers.

Is it a typo? The article with the title is now missing.

fred2
  • 5,823
  • 17
  • 31
SHIN JaeGuk
  • 839
  • 5
  • 18
  • 1
    Given that both headlines come from the same source, I would say yes, one of them is a typo. In general, du bit look to headlines to inform your understanding of proper English grammar. – randomhead Aug 14 '21 at 10:36
  • 2
    The cited text is "headlinese" anyway, so there's little point in using it to try and learn about normal English syntax. But it's worth pointing out that in contexts like Although the Almoravids resisted further Christian advances, they were not able to retake Toledo, the word "Christian" is being used *adjectivally. It's perfectly possible to parse OP's second example as using "Taliban" adjectivally as well (or* as a straightforward "subject" noun without the preceding definite article which we'd normally expect anywhere except in headlines). – FumbleFingers Aug 14 '21 at 13:31
  • 2
    Does this answer your question? The correct omission of the definite and indefinite articles – FumbleFingers Aug 14 '21 at 13:34
  • @FumbleFingers No. It's not the matter of 'article' but the matter of concord between subject and verb. – SHIN JaeGuk Aug 14 '21 at 15:02
  • @SHINJaeGuk: As implied by my comment, that's entirely a matter of opinion. To me as a native speaker who's read countless headlines over the decades, it's perfectly possible to parse your second example as starting with adjectival Taliban modifying the plural noun advances (with introductory There are / have been "deleted", as is normal with headlines). And so far as your first example is concerned - I'm a Brit, so I find it perfectly natural to treat nouns like *Taliban, police, Microsoft* as plural (where it's often irrelevant whether they're preceded by "the"). – FumbleFingers Aug 15 '21 at 11:10

2 Answers2

1

As Fumblefingers mentioned, these are headlines, so normal grammar rules don't necessarily apply. The following explanation describes why it could be grammatically correct to use both singular and plural verb forms with the same word.

Taliban is a plural of the arabic word talib, which means student, because many of the original members of the Taliban organization were students from Islamic schools in the Pashtun region of Afghanistan.

A group of members or the Taliban organization can be, and are, referred to as taliban- students: this usage should be considered plural. The Islamic fundamentalist group is also called Taliban: this usage should be considered singular.

Taliban take key city close to Kabul as U.S. troops arrive to assist evacuations

In this sentence, the word taliban is used to refer to a group of fighters taking a city. The fighters are plural, so the verb is take.

Taliban advances in Afghanistan, U.S. and Britain to evacuate embassies

In this sentence, the organization as a whole is advancing: the organization is singular, so the verb is advances.

This singular/plural duality also occurs in English. The word "fish" can be used to describe one fish, a group of fish (or even a piece of one fish). Both of these sentences are therefore grammatically correct:

The fish swims in the river
The fish swim in the river

JavaLatte
  • 59,614
  • 2
  • 75
  • 134
  • I know that a collective noun can be used as a singular or plural. Do you mean that the former Taliban would be used as individual soldiers? – SHIN JaeGuk Aug 14 '21 at 15:06
  • 1
    The question is about the optional pluralization of collective nouns, not words that are ambiguously plural or singular like fish or sheep. – gotube Aug 15 '21 at 02:45
  • @SHINJaeGuk I have updated my answer to explain more clearly the difference in usage between the two sentences. Note that Taliban members are not considered to be soldiers, as they do not wear uniforms. The normal term to use for them is "fighters". https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/soldier – JavaLatte Aug 15 '21 at 09:46
  • @gotube: you are entitled to your opinion on what the question is about:. I think it's about apparently contradictory usages of a foreign word that can have different meanings in the native language- one meaning is singular, the other is plural. In the two sentences that appear in the question, the choice of verb is appropriate for each meaning, and is not, as the question suggests, a typo. – JavaLatte Aug 15 '21 at 09:51
1

With nouns like "government", "team" or "Taliban", they can be treated as singular or plural, according to context and the particular nuance that the author wants to give.

So I can say

The team are playing well (with the nuance that it is a collection of individual good performances)

The team is playing well (with the nuance that is a group effort, a single collective)

This is even more so in a word like Taliban (which is plural in the original language, but used in English as a singular name of an organisation), which can be treated as singular or plural, almost at the whim of the writer.

James K
  • 217,650
  • 16
  • 258
  • 452