Forum: Author Hangout

Livestock is an exception.

Maybe this explains why

The livestock is worth a lot. -- [uncountable; used with a singular verb]
The livestock were grazing. -- [plural; used with a plural verb]

A singular verb emphasizes the group; a plural verb emphasizes the individual members.

That was my example above.

My conclusions are:
- abstract uncountable nouns are always singular.
- it is safe in both AmE and AmE to treat collective uncountable nouns as either singular or plural, depending on whether you want to emphasise one action by the group, or actions by individual members.

Rather than looking for one rule to apply in every single case, why not try to find rule while apply to each sentence (which applies to the chickens in the original inquiry).

You seem to be too caught up in 'one rule to bind them all', rather than 'what's the best use in this single case'. You're trying to answer a specific question, rather than determine the nature of the universe.

Livestock is can be used to refer to a single group of animals, and in that case it should be treated as a singular noun.

Example: My livestock is out in the field.

Thank you. My extremely ancient source claims that livestock is a group noun and presumed singular unless the context dictates otherwise.

I see it's now classed as a collective noun, but the singular/plural dichotomy doesn't seem to be any clearer.

One of Ross's sources clearly suggests the singular in my context and that was the majority verdict from the grammarians in my writers' group. But I still think it
sounds wrong :(

AJ

but the singular/plural dichotomy doesn't seem to be any clearer.

Singular versus plural is determined by how the writer is using 'livestock'. Is the writer referring to the group or to the individual animals.

Livestock is can be used to refer to a single group of animals, and in that case it should be treated as a singular noun.

Example: My livestock is out in the field.

Or, equally valid, "the livestock are out in the field".

The is no universal rule to be applied in every case here. Use whichever fits the circumstances.

@awnlee jackson

'The only livestock that could survive in that environment was/were chickens.'

How about: "The only livestock which might survive in that environment are chickens."

How about: "The only livestock which might survive in that environment are chickens."

Thanks. I see you went for plural.

Unfortunately you've subtly changed the sentence. The narrator is recounting a historical fact to explain why the only meat eaten by the natives of that environment was chicken.

AJ

The only livestock that could survive in that environment was/were chickens.'

If you take out the complicating factor ("the environment") it's clearer:

The only livestock that could survive were chickens.

Thus you'd default to: The only livestock that could survive in that environment were chickens.'

Still, since "environment" is what's causing the complication, I'd avoid it altogether.

"environment" is what's causing the complication,

No, it's the plural "chickens" that is the cause of the confusion (if "livestock" was a singular noun).

"Were" sounds right because it's next to "chickens" which is plural. But if "livestock" had been singular, it would have been "was" and sound wrong because of "chickens."

I wonder how many in your writers group chose "were" because it sounds better with "chickens"?

I voted for 'were' so I was on the losing side ;)

AJ

Have you read the Anita Blake stories by Laurell K Hamilton? All sorts of were creatures in those, although IIRC, were swans were the only fowl.

AJ

I guess that's slightly more likely than Wile E Coyote and the were road-runner ;)

AJ

I voted for 'were' so I was on the losing side ;)

"Were" is the correct answer, but not because chickens is plural. It's because livestock, in this case, is plural.

But the sentence has to be changed because someone pointed out that chickens are not livestock.

But the sentence has to be changed because someone pointed out that chickens are not livestock.

But the entire point of the sentence was, that out of ALL the 'living creatures' a farming cares for, chickens were the only ones likely to survive the harsh environment. In that case, even though it may not fit a government definition of 'livestock', it fits most readers' expectations of the work and it fits.

I'm wondering whether Peruvian Guinea Pigs count as livestock ;)

AJ

Thinking about it, I'd consider livestock to be a very broad church.

A US acquaintance of mine breeds wingless Drosophila and sells them to research laboratories and carnivorous plant enthusiasts. I consider them to be an example of livestock. Ditto maggots and worms for sale by bait shops. And leeches and tapeworms farmed for medicinal purposes.

AJ

I'd consider livestock to be a very broad church.

While I would tend to agree with you that animals raised for profit could be considered livestock. But, most dictionaries define livestock as animals one who expect to find on what one typically considers to be a farm or ranch. I don't think a worm farm would be considered a typical farm.

I'm actually wondering whether people working in the laboratory where they keep the last Smallpox virus samples would consider them livestock. And how about sperm banks?

AJ

And how about sperm banks?

Sperm banks are lifestocks, rather than livestock. Like seedbanks, you're banking future generations, rather than products for sale.

I'm wondering whether Peruvian Guinea Pigs count as livestock ;)

Not in the US. 780-120 cited by Carl specifically excludes guinea pigs.

Not in the US. 780-120 cited by Carl specifically excludes guinea pigs.

When you cite a law like that you need to realise the law exists for a very limited legal reason, and should only be used as a definitive source for only that legal reason. While dictionary definitions are more widely understood and used in the general world.

Like the laws on when you become an adult - some laws have people stay as children until they're 21, while others state 18, and others 16, yet some communities recognise people as adults at 14 - - and that's all within the USA. So which is the definitive age for the jump from being a child to being an adult? The legal answer varies with the law being applied while the community answer varies a great deal.

You can build and own a building that's a building under some laws but not a building under other laws - how's that for confusion.

In short, the law only applies to the limited applications stated within it.

Not in the US. 780-120 cited by Carl specifically excludes guinea pigs.

And by the way, I grew up on on a small farm, only 6 acres. We had four cows, a small family of pigs, and a group of chickens. Dad would say, Time to feed the livestock and the chickens.

Of course, the main reason I tend to quote legal stuff is simple - that's the area my degree is in, even if I don't use it now. It's not that I'm trying to nitpick here, but with all these arguments about different styles of writing and one guy will cite an opinion by one source while someone will cite another opinion from a different source ... what I'm citing isn't opinion. It's law, at least here in the USA. You can raise guinea pigs as a farming activity, but that doesn't make them livestock.

I've certainly never heard of anyone raising guinea pigs for meat or fur.

Part of the UK's international aid budget went to Guinea Pig farming in Peru in order to breed larger animals as a food source.

My more up-to-date dictionary cites 'livestock' as being animals farmed as an asset. In my opinion, cats and dogs would meet that definition cf 'puppy farm'.

AJ

My more up-to-date dictionary cites 'livestock' as being animals farmed as an asset. In my opinion, cats and dogs would meet that definition cf 'puppy farm'.

Here in Australia some farmers have Lamas and Alpacas as livestock mixed in with their sheep as a guard animal. However, the only specific definition of livestock provided in this discussion has been from a US law where they limit the definition for a legal reason of some sort to do with the law it's being quoted from. I know here in Australia many things have different definitions for different laws or sections of the law. Thus the whole issue of what is and isn't livestock only becomes relevant when you get down to which legal jurisdiction, and for what legal purpose you're listing the animals. For fiction purposes the commonly accepted general definition of any animal breed for personal consumption or a commercial reason would qualify.

For fiction purposes the commonly accepted general definition of any animal breed for personal consumption or a commercial reason would qualify.

While I wouldn't list fish and shrimp as livestock—despite their being abundant fish and shrimp farms (ponds stocks with thousands of overcrowded produce), I'd be willing to include anything raised (for eventual sale) on a 'traditional farm' (puppies and cats excluded, since they aren't traditionally sold for food most places).

While you can use a legal definition if writing about a specific farming community, in an alternate universe, I'd go with a more generic definition.

How about mushrooms?

If you don't include carrots and potatoes, then why would you include mushrooms? Farms have livestock (things that require exercise and feeding) and produce, which require watering, tending and picking. They're two different categories.

Not really an animal, but then it is "anything" as opposed to nothing.

I suspect people would class it as a vegetable rather than an animal or mineral if forced into membership of that trichotomy. Even I would draw the line at calling mushrooms 'livestock'.

AJ

My more up-to-date dictionary cites 'livestock' as being animals farmed as an asset. In my opinion, cats and dogs would meet that definition cf 'puppy farm'.

You have multiple fish and shrimp farms, yet no one would consider these to be 'livestock'. Just because you put "farm" after a word doesn't mean it then becomes part of the definition of livestock.

'Puppy Farm' is become pejorative in the UK too.

For cultural reasons, it might be different in Korea ;)

AJ

I named Korea because it's the first name on most Westerners' lips when they think of dog meat.

I'd like to try dog meat to see what it tastes like, but simultaneously the prospect appalls me because some dogs pass the tests of sentience: recognising themselves in a mirror, using tools, and displaying altruism.

(Yep, I thought the Oxford comma was better in that context.)

AJ

I don't know what breed it was or if that makes a difference in the flavor.

The breed was most likely: the neighbor's dog. :(

'Puppy Farm' is become pejorative in the UK too.

For cultural reasons, it might be different in Korea ;)

In most of Asia it would be classed as a restaurant supply farm.

It's law, at least here in the USA.

If you got the idea I was putting you down that wasn't my intent.

Awnlee started out with the following sentence with the apparent intent of obtaining feedback on which verb was correct and why.

'The only livestock that could survive in that environment was/were chickens.'

This was basically a literary discussion.

You pointed out that according to the Congressional Federal Record, chicken aren't livestock citing 780-120 and 780-328.

Then Switch Blade said Awnlee had to rewrite the entire sentence because of what you said.

I disagreed and I started my reply off by saying:

Why? Do we always have to go with a definition defined by the law?

I also pointed out to SB that 120 and 328 do not mention poultry, and I mentioned that other countries aren't bound by US Law. Remember Awnlee lives in England not the US.

Since we were discussing literary issues, not legal definitions, I said and quoted a definition from the Cambridge dictionary because it specifically lists chickens as livestock:

Furthermore, dictionaries provide non-legal definitions that are valid for general use. For writing, I will go with definitions that apply to general use. For example:

Animals and birds that are kept on a farm, such as cows, sheep, or chickens

A facetious conversation ensued and I made the above comment, which you highlighted, but forgot to add a smiley.

Bottom line, in a literary situation, I will go with the definition(s) that most people use. The law can constrain the definition to mean a specific thing for a specific reasons, but I really don't care if the literary definition is the more appropriate one to use in a story.

But the sentence has to be changed because someone pointed out that chickens are not livestock.

Why? Do we always have to go with a definition defined by the law? 780-328 contains the phrase:

and other domestic animals ordinarily raised or used on the farm.

Chickens fall into that category, so most of us think of chickens as livestock. It should also be noted that 780-120 excludes certain types of animals from livestock, but neither 780-328 or 780-120, cited by Starfleet Car, mention poultry. Poultry may be excluded by the Congressional Federal Register, but not in the references provided. Also remember that the Congressional Federal Register is US law, and the exclusion of chickens from livestock may not be legally valid in other countries.

Furthermore, dictionaries provide non-legal definitions that are valid for general use. For writing, I will go with definitions that apply to general use. For example:

Animals and birds that are kept on a farm, such as cows, sheep, or chickens

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/livestock

I voted for 'were' so I was on the losing side ;)

I like balance in a sentence. With a singular noun and verb, I would expect to see a singular object. Conversely, with a plural noun and verb, I would expect to see a plural object.

In this particular case, the object is chickens, which is plural, so I would say the subject and verb should be plural. Therefore, I would go with 'were'.

If the rest of the world wants to vote for 'was', I will stick with 'were'. Voting does not always yield the proper result, just the most popular result. :)