|
Post by Geoff on Jun 29, 2008 4:16:04 GMT
In the A Spelling Question thread, Paul wrote: Trouble is, there seems to be as many exceptions as not: lecturer, adaptor. I baulked in the middle of the sentence. Should seems be seem?
|
|
David
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by David on Jun 29, 2008 11:08:36 GMT
I think it should, Geoff.
I was intending to start a thread about agreement, and you've kindly done it for me. Take the following:
Two thrushes and a blackbird are on the lawn; There is a blackbird and two thrushes on the lawn.
I switch to singular in the second case because it seems uncomfortable to begin a sentence There are a blackbird... even though a blackbird and two thrushes is (are?) plural. Would others do the same?
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 29, 2008 18:04:40 GMT
I think it should, Geoff. I was intending to start a thread about agreement, and you've kindly done it for me. Take the following: Two thrushes and a blackbird are on the lawn; There is a blackbird and two thrushes on the lawn.I switch to singular in the second case because it seems uncomfortable to begin a sentence There are a blackbird... even though a blackbird and two thrushes is (are?) plural. Would others do the same? David, I understand why you have used the singular in the second case but this is one of those case where the syntax that feels correct actually isn't. Your second example should use "are", just as the first does.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Mildr on Jun 29, 2008 18:49:20 GMT
In such cases where the 'correct' (used hesitantly!) version seems to contradict what sounds OK, I revert to re-casting. Here, I'd probably stick with your first version.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 29, 2008 19:17:59 GMT
... this is one of those case where the syntax that feels correct actually isn't. I don't accept there is such a case. If if feels correct to a substantial number of experienced users, then it is correct. Any other position leads to madness!
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 29, 2008 19:42:03 GMT
... this is one of those case where the syntax that feels correct actually isn't. I don't accept there is such a case. If if feels correct to a substantial number of experienced users, then it is correct. Any other position leads to madness! Paul, you can't seriously be saying the "a blackbird and two thrushes" isn't plural?
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 29, 2008 19:42:50 GMT
In such cases where the 'correct' (used hesitantly!) version seems to contradict what sounds OK, I revert to re-casting. Here, I'd probably stick with your first version. I tend to agree that where it feels right but seems to contravene the normal rule, recast.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 29, 2008 20:07:35 GMT
... this is one of those case where the syntax that feels correct actually isn't. I don't accept there is such a case. If if feels correct to a substantial number of experienced users, then it is correct. Any other position leads to madness! For a change (ha!) I take the opposing view. I confess that, most unfortunately, the English language isn't entirely logical, but we should be aiming to retain or, better still, to increase its level of logicality. "Two thrushes and a blackbird are on the lawn" is entirely logical, having verb and number agreement; "There are a blackbird and two thrushes on the lawn" is saying the same thing with a bit of extra verbiage, and exactly the same verb and number agreement applies. To hell with whether it feels odd (and it feels just fine to me, by the way); we can't let an illogical piece of incorrect grammar slip by merely because it feels right. That is the way in which madness and the slide to anarchic English lie. As an afterthought, would commas help, i.e. "There is a blackbird, and [there are (understood)] two thrushes, on the lawn"?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 29, 2008 21:16:58 GMT
Paul, you can't seriously be saying the "a blackbird and two thrushes" isn't plural? Of course I can! In fact, I'd regard it as two grammatical objects: one (the blackbird) is singular and the other (the thrushes) is plural. So we are really saying there is a blackbird and there are two thrushes on the lawn. When we have multiple subjects or (as in this case) objects of equal importance, it makes sense (and it may even be a rule!) to take the nearer one as governing the verb agreement. Or view it as elision: there is a blackbird and [there are] two thrushes on the lawn.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 29, 2008 21:35:12 GMT
Paul, you can't seriously be saying the "a blackbird and two thrushes" isn't plural? Of course I can! In fact, I'd regard it as two grammatical objects: one (the blackbird) is singular and the other (the thrushes) is plural. So we are really saying there is a blackbird and there are two thrushes on the lawn. When we have multiple subjects or (as in this case) objects of equal importance, it makes sense (and it may even be a rule!) to take the nearer one as governing the verb agreement. Or view it as elision: there is a blackbird and [there are] two thrushes on the lawn. <When we have multiple subjects or (as in this case) objects of equal importance, it makes sense (and it may even be a rule!) to take the nearer one as governing the verb agreement.> I don't think it makes sense, nor do I believe there's any such rule. Where we have multiple objects - whether they're of equal importance or not - we have a plurality of objects, and there's no reason why the nearer one should govern the verb agreement; the overall number should govern the verb agreement, and the overall number in this case is plural. <Or view it as elision: there is a blackbird and [there are] two thrushes on the lawn.> I was half suggesting that in my previous post but, having considered it further, I don't think it holds water. For elision to work in that way its meaning has to be unmistakable, and in that example it isn't, because it can be read merely as poor grammar. If "There is a blackbird and there are two thrushes on the lawn" is what's meant, that's how it should be written, to avoid confusion.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 29, 2008 22:12:02 GMT
For elision to work in that way its meaning has to be unmistakable, and in that example it isn't, because it can be read merely as poor grammar. Only by a pedant! And only a grammar hypochondriac would write "There is a blackbird and there are two thrushes on the lawn" because the elision "might be confusing"! As for number agreement with compound subjects, there certainly is a proximity rule: - Is my father or my brothers bringing it? - Are my brothers or my father bringing it? The trouble with There is a blackbird and two thrushes on the lawn is that the subject is there, and it's this that we have to decide whether it's singular or plural. There is a dummy subject, and normally agrees with the semantic subject: singular in There is a blackbird on the lawn and plural in There are two thrushes on the lawn. When the semantic subject is a blackbird and two thrushes, it's of indeterminate plurality! Twod/Pete, how would you deal with my name and address is on the envelope? Also ungrammatical? And what about "Have either of you two clowns read the assignment?" "Are either of you taking this seriously?" Burchfield calls this "a clash between notional and actual agreement." I think almost no-one would call these ungrammatical, and yet a plural verb is being used with a singular subject. Of course, there is not the only word which can be either singular or plural. We are familliar with group nouns like team, audience, government, BBC: "Her family are all avid skiers"; "Her family is all together at last".
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 29, 2008 22:23:29 GMT
And what about my fruit salad: there are one banana and two apples in it. Sounding odd yet, Twod?
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jun 29, 2008 22:43:04 GMT
Does the choice of and or or for the conjunction make a difference in any of your thinking?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 29, 2008 22:52:02 GMT
Sometimes, obviously. John and Ringo are the winners, John or Ringo is the winner.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Jun 30, 2008 3:26:39 GMT
Interesting, all of it; but I have to once again ask, should seems be seem in the following sentence? Trouble is, there seems to be as many exceptions as not: lecturer, adaptor.
|
|