United Kingdom

[pinoypower]

I am wondering if the name United Kingdom or U.K. is grammatically wrong?Why?
Take the cases of U.S.A. or United States of America, U.A.E. or United Arab Emirates and the former U.S.S.R. or Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. How come Kingdom in U.K is without 's'. How did they unite one kingdom?

[patis]

I am wondering if the name United Kingdom or U.K. is grammatically wrong?Why?
Take the cases of U.S.A. or United States of America, U.A.E. or United Arab Emirates and the former U.S.S.R. or Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. How come Kingdom in U.K is without 's'. How did they unite one kingdom?

UK is composed of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Mark]

Wow I like the question why United Kingdom has got no s in the end, just like United States of America, United Arab Emirates, etc. True.

Please allow a different tune. And mine may not be on grammar but the sense of it all. It seems disconcerting to me that when a group or groups call themselves United, unity is somehow lost. Really, deep down things, the moment I call something United it is because so much disunity is happening. I may be wrong but there is some truth to this.

It is unique that in the case of the United Kingdom no s exists. Perhaps, and I say this with some trepidation in my heart (and wait: NO SHOOTING PLEASE): When we say United Kingdom a certain sense of COHESION is achieved more than semantics or generic grammar. The sound, sense, logic and metaphysics are yoked into one: The United Kingdom. It is quite a mystery to me that, in general, even in the absence of codified laws, the United Kingdom really stands united enough.

Ok, this is just some shooting the breeze.

I agree there is no s here. Not just grammar is touched, but the heart of the matter: meaning.

Take care.

Mark

[rsveneracionph]

That's a nice question.

[Maria_maria]

I don't think it is grammatically incorrect.

United Kingdom is acceptable as in the following example: "We used to be made up of four kingdoms but now we are one united kingdom."

That is to say, just because a whole is made up of parts it doesn't mean that the plural should be used.

[Maria_maria]

As a follow up:

The United Kingdom which used to be composed of small monarchies that have since united to become ONE United Kingdom does not have autonomous states or regions.

The USA on the other hand, while they have just one president, has fifty autonomous states each with its own local laws and a governor to see to its affairs -- each state has a tiny government, if you will.

The USSR, I believe was the same. Within the USSR little republics existed such as Croatia, Ukraine, Tajikistan, etc. Each one had a tiny autonomous government aside from the national leader.

[pinoypower]

Wow I like the question why United Kingdom has got no s in the end, just like United States of America, United Arab Emirates, etc. True.

Please allow a different tune. And mine may not be on grammar but the sense of it all. It seems disconcerting to me that when a group or groups call themselves United, unity is somehow lost. Really, deep down things, the moment I call something United it is because so much disunity is happening. I may be wrong but there is some truth to this.

It is unique that in the case of the United Kingdom no s exists. Perhaps, and I say this with some trepidation in my heart (and wait: NO SHOOTING PLEASE): When we say United Kingdom a certain sense of COHESION is achieved more than semantics or generic grammar. The sound, sense, logic and metaphysics are yoked into one: The United Kingdom. It is quite a mystery to me that, in general, even in the absence of codified laws, the United Kingdom really stands united enough.

Ok, this is just some shooting the breeze.

I agree there is no s here. Not just grammar is touched, but the heart of the matter: meaning.

Take care.

Mark

Thanks a lot for that very philosophical and inspiring answer to a technical or shall I say grammatical question. Whether it's coffee, grammar or anyother topics under the sun you certainly handle it with flair. This is the reason why your my favorite EC writer.

[pinoypower]

As a follow up:

The United Kingdom which used to be composed of small monarchies that have since united to become ONE United Kingdom does not have autonomous states or regions.

The USA on the other hand, while they have just one president, has fifty autonomous states each with its own local laws and a governor to see to its affairs -- each state has a tiny government, if you will.

The USSR, I believe was the same. Within the USSR little republics existed such as Croatia, Ukraine, Tajikistan, etc. Each one had a tiny autonomous government aside from the national leader.

Thanks for the valid arguments but please allow me to raise a few more issues to further enlighten us. You said that United Kingdom does not have autonomous states or regions but aren't Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and I think Channel Islands part of U.K.? As far as I know the said nations are part of U.K. and they have their own parliament as well.
I am not sure of what I know but that is my impression. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Maria_maria]

Not so sure.

There are regions in the UK, yes. As far as I know, the same national law applies to all of these regions and their local governments as opposed to the States where apart from the national law, there are local states laws. (For example, we may have heard that certain things that are legal in nevada may be illegal in other states).

I'm not sure about it though... maybe we can get someone who's an expert on UK law to help us with this one...

But as for the original question, United Kingdom (without an 's') is acceptable.

[ctivnan]

In addition, the United Kingdom historically refers to England occupying Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the Channel Islands, so what has been united there? :coy:

[Maria_maria]

Ah, I just found out that the whole name of the UK is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Island of Great Britain contains Scotland, England and Wales. In the olden times, they were separate countries with their own monarchs. In 1707, the three kings signed a treaty of union to unite the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Wales into one united kingdom of Great Britain.

In 1800, the union act included the kingdom of Northern Ireland to create what is now the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Now why not United Kingdoms? It's because there is now only one monarch, not four.

I wonder if we've got it this time...

[pinoypower]

Ah, I just found out that the whole name of the UK is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Island of Great Britain contains Scotland, England and Wales. In the olden times, they were separate countries with their own monarchs. In 1707, the three kings signed a treaty of union to unite the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Wales into one united kingdom of Great Britain.

In 1800, the union act included the kingdom of Northern Ireland to create what is now the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Now why not United Kingdoms? It's because there is now only one monarch, not four.

I wonder if we've got it this time...

Logical and precise Maria_ maria. Thanks for the elucidation. Actually we can't question a fact that the world has long accepted. This is the reason why I raised the question on the trivia forum. Now , another trivial matter popped up in my mind. What if we change the name of our country to United Philippines? Would it finally bring unity and prosperity that has long eluded our country?

[Maria_maria]

Ah, a great question!

I think countless leaders (presidents, senators, congressment) have tried dubbing our country United Philippines every election time to no avail... now what are we going to do? I think progress and prosperity will have to depend on us now, the private citizens of the country