Avangi wrote: |
Hi,
Perhaps not all journalists are perfect. "Hanged over to San Quentin" ain't too good neither. (hanged at San Quentin - taken to San Quentin)
I saw a dictionary reference someone posted in another thread, and I think it applies: "When there is a mixture of singular and plural subjects, the verb traditionally agrees with the subject that is closer to it." One was hanged. Two were hanged. One or two were hanged. Either the James Brothers or their cousin was hanged. (The reference involved "either," which may be a special case. I'm not sure.)
I have a feeling your journalist is a novelist who's trying to put a little local color into his work by using bad language.
Regards, - A. |
|
Hi Avangi,
The grammar rule is clear. Therefore, when I saw the sentence, I was taken aback by the use of
was. I also thought 'hanged' must be 'handed'. Using the key "two was hanged over to," I found this webpage: http://www.jacklondons.net/first_and_Last_chance.html. Perhaps, you might like to give it a look. Moreover, I also found this:
"A decade ago, one or two was the norm. The University of Texas
at Austin also is up to a dozen a year, as is Iowa State
University," (The Chronicle of Higher Education).
You can find the text shown up in Google cache: http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:eldBHBR-iVkJ:chronicle.com/che-data/articles.dir/art-42.dir/issue-21.dir/21a03101.htm+%22one+or+two+was%22&hl=vi&ct=clnk&cd=17&gl=vn&client=firefox-a
Amyway, if it is not an idom, I use
were instead.
Thanks ,
Hoa Thai