3

Based on what I know from English grammar, team should come after the name. The examples are "Soccer Team", "Basketball team", etc.. But recently I've seen some indie developers naming themselves as "Team [name]". Team Meat is an example of that, or Team Snore. And watching a commentary, I've heard them say "Team Na'Vi" or "Team Orange". So I was wondering if such an structure is acceptable or not?

migrated from english.stackexchange.com Sep 10 '13 at 11:38

This question came from our site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts.

  • 1
    It's a title/name, not a sentence, and hence strictly it does not have to be grammatical. Names such as "Team XYZ" are not uncommon. – TrevorD Sep 10 '13 at 11:09
  • "Team Na'Vi" is a Dota 2 team. (Just trying to give an example of both uses in one sentence.) – skymningen Sep 10 '13 at 12:40
5

OP's examples aren't really postposed adjectives in the normal sense. As discussed by British linguist David Crystal in his blog entry On Team GB, this "restrictive apposition" construction is essentially the same as...

Mount Everest (= the mountain that is Everest)
Queen Elizabeth (= the Queen who is Elizabeth)
my brother Fred (= my brother who is Fred)
the number six (= the number that is six)
Hurricane Katrina (etc., etc.)

That's to say, Team Meat = the team which is, more specifically, Meat. As Crystal puts it, the superficially "reversed word order ... does have a certain rhetorical punch", making it attractive when you want an "imposing" name for your team/whatever.

Personally, I think there's also an argument for saying that to some extent the prepositioned "noun" (team, in OP's case) actually functions both grammatically and semantically as an adjective. The primary "identifier" of the entity is Meat, which is specifically qualified as being a type of team.

  • 1
    +1 I first remember this construction in the mid-1980s, specifically "Team USA" for the 1984 US Olympic team. It appears from this case involving Xerox' use of "Team Xerox" in a 1983-4 advertising campaign that the use was "derived mainly from European athletic usage" (p.1414). – StoneyB Sep 10 '13 at 13:25
  • @StoneyB: I don't really understand why this one was migrated from ELU, whereas Why must 'galore' be used postpositively? wasn't. It seems to me these are really two "related, but different" constructions, and it's not obvious to me why one would be thought more relevant to learners than the other. – FumbleFingers Sep 10 '13 at 14:55
1

A basketball team is a type of team, i.e. a team that plays basketball.

Team Meat is the name of a team. So, Team Meat is a specific instance of a team. It doesn't tell you what they do.

  • I don't see how this "explains" the usage. So far as I'm aware, Team GB is normally only used to identify the Olympics team from Great Britain - but that one doesn't tell you what the team actually do, and it could equally well be referred to as [the] GB team. – FumbleFingers Sep 10 '13 at 16:34
  • I don't think anyone would refer to the Great British team as GB team. Your brackets are incorrect, an article is always required. Team Meat is a name of a team, not a type of team. – Matt Ellen Sep 10 '13 at 16:37
  • Your comment presupposes a specific [grammatical/semantic] role for my square brackets. I know in some [particularly, computer-related] usages it denotes an optional but not required element, but that wasn't particularly my intention there. I personally wouldn't have any problem referring to our GB team, for example. – FumbleFingers Sep 10 '13 at 16:57
0

Team - Shashank is an acceptable structure . It indicates that the team is named as shashank . Soccer team , basketball team are the types of teams and not the name of the team per-se.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy