American and British English grammatical differences

Some of the most notable differences between American English and British English are grammatical.

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''. The term ''the Government'' always takes a plural verb in British civil service convention, perhaps to emphasise the principle of cabinet collective responsibility. 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'', 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''. Despite 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 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,

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.

Verbs

Verb morphology

* 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. For other words (such as ''dreamed'', ''leaned'', and ''learned'') 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'' , 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."). 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 djective-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''pastX 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 ast-'fit''."; "The clothes ast-'fit'' me well.").
* The past tense of ''spit'' " expectorate" is ''spat'' in BrE, ''spit'' or ''spat'' in AmE. 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'').
* 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"
* 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'') or ''sneak'' (''snuck''), and often mixes the preterite and past participle forms (''spring''–''sprang'', US also ''spring''–''sprung''), sometimes forcing verbs such as ''shrink'' (''shrank''–''shrunk'') to have a further form, thus ''shrunk''–''shrunken''. 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.

Use of tenses

* 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 '' 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 ould'vecooked the pie we could have ould'vehad 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. (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''.) 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 wouldgive 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.

Verbal auxiliaries

*''Shall'' is much more commonly used by the British than by modern-day Americans, who generally prefer ''will''. 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; 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.
*The periphrastic future "''be going to''" is about twice as frequent in AmE as in BrE.
*Use of "do" as a pro-predicate is almost exclusively British usage.
:*Example: "Did Frank love it?" — "He must have done."
: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:
:
:Except in the negative, the initial pronoun may be omitted in informal speech.

Transitivity

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'').
* ''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, 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'').

Complementation

* 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'', ''begin'', ''omit'', ''enjoy'';
** In BrE than AmE, with ''love'', ''like'', ''intend''.

Presence (or absence) of syntactic elements

* 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 take/have a bath", AmE speakers may also say "I'll go take/have a bath". (Both can also use the form "to go " instead to suggest that the action might fail, as in "He went 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 " plus bare infinitive. Thus, where a speaker of AmE may say "come see what I bought", BrE and some AmE speakers would say "come see what I've bought" (notice the present perfect: a common British preference).
* 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 ''