Search results for 'tag:Grammar tag:Plurals' matching tags 'Grammar' and 'Plurals'

Re: fruit are?

Cool Breeze — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:01:32 GMT

Goodman

As written: John and Mary are the only officers who make decisions around here. And I asked if the answer should be [makes] or [make].
And you said "In your sentence of course make"

By the nature of your comment, didn't you just agree with my view?

Yes, as far as who is concerned. What is something else. It never has an antecedent as a relative pronoun, neither singular nor plural, nothing, and that's why a singular verb is used with it. This is obvious from the singular that, which occurs in that which, which is sometimes used to replace what.

You can of course check the grammatical behavior of relative what in any good grammar book if you don't believe me. I find it very strange that you haven't already done that. It would have saved you a lot of time wasted writing opinions instead of facts.

Re: These ones and those ones

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:25:00 GMT

Anonymous
It is true that "ones," according to proper grammar should not follow "these" or "those" only because one is a singular object. If there is a plural number, "one" becomes inappropriate however there are few people I know (I live in the midwest US) that do not use this construction, as in common speech leaving an object out of a sentence sounds strange or over educated.

My wife and I both hail from the Southwestern US (California and Arizona, mainly), and we disagree on this. I've never used "these ones" or "those ones", and I think it sounds clumsy and unnatural. She and her family have always used it, and don't don't an eyelash over it. It's sort of like when you're a good speller, but you need to see the written word, to see how it looks, to know if it's right or not. I'm not a grammar expert, but I understand English better than most, and when I hear that it just makes me wince ever so slightly.

Grammar Geek
Anon, what pronoun would you suggest then for something to replace "pens" in the second and third line below?

I'm looking for a particular set of drawing pens.

Are these the pens you're looking for?

Thanks, but no, those aren't the pens I'm looking for.

(I agree that "Those ones aren't the right ones" is wrong - it's simply "Those." But I don't agree that ones can't be plural.)

See, this the weird thing. While that last sentence doesn't sound right, this one does:

Are these the pens you're looking for?

Thanks, but no, those aren't the ones I'm looking for.

Re: terrorists

Yoong Liat — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:33:08 GMT

Hi New2grammar

I think the Americans would use 'was' despite the presence of 'they'.

In fact, in BrE some grammarians prescribe 'was'. However, the majority say that it should be 'were' to be consistent with the plural pronouns.

A team of soldiers was on a mission to capture or kill Al-Qaeda members in a remote village in Afghanistan. It was really dark in that area and they had to put on night vision goggles when they went into a suspected hideout

Re: terrorists

Yoong Liat — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:09:48 GMT

New2grammar
A team of soldiers were on a mission to capture or kill Al-Qaeda members in a remote village in Afghanistan. It was really dark in that area and they had to put on night vision goggles when they went into a suspected hideout. What they didn't know was the insurgents were waiting inside to ambush them. When the team had entered the house through a narrow corridor, the terrorists came out and opened fire from behind a fortified bunker.

Are there any mistakes?
Thanks.

26TM wrote: A team (being a collective noun) of soldiers" is sometimes followed by a singular verb which is not so suitable for your case.

In BrE, it is fine to use 'they' with a collective.

A team of soldiers were on a mission to capture or kill Al-Qaeda members in a remote village in Afghanistan. It was really dark in that area and they had to put on night vision goggles when they went into a suspected hideout

were. they, they (all plural, so they are consistent)

Re: devastation

Yoong Liat — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:01:35 GMT

Hi New2grammar

I've gone through the following Britsh English dictionaries and the definitions are as follows:

local [usually plural] someone who lives in a place where you are or the place that you are talking about: We asked one of the locals to recommend a restaurant. (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English)

local [usually plural] a person who lives in a particular place or district: The locals are very friendly. (Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary)

noun: locals The locals are the people living in a particular area. (Times-Chambers Essential English Dictionary)

noun: locals The locals are local people. (Collins Cobuild Dictionary for Advanced Learners)

I will leave you to decide whether, according to British English, 'a local' is fine.

Re: all nighters

RayH — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 03:40:15 GMT

New2grammar
He had not been sleeping for more than one night when he made the run?

I read the whole story you link to and I have to say the use of "all-nighter" in this context doesn't make sense. It especially doesn't make sense in the plural.

Re: none of these gadgets matter/matters

Avangi — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:12:15 GMT

My understanding is that "none" requires the plural verb. I suspect in actual usage, it would be about fifty-fifty. - A.

Somebody recently wrote a grammar quote in a thread: "syntactically plural; simantically singular" in a different context about a different word. I thought it was neat. Can't remember the details. Maybe it was the other way around.

Edit. I think Marius is right. If a word may be singular or plural, we go by proximity. (I couldn't remember if "none" fit that definition.)

Re: Three out of every four automobile owners in the U.S also own a bicyle

Avangi — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:02:12 GMT

Kprasadreddy
Three out of every four automobile owners in the U.S also own a bicyle

One out of every four automobile owners in the U.S also owns a bicyle

Kprasadreddy
Thanks but can you explain the grammar behind it?

In your first example, "three" is the subject of the sentence. The prepositional phrase "out of etc." modifies "three." The plural subject requires the plural verb, "own."

The subject of your second sentence is "one," which is singular and takes the singular verb "owns."

The separate issue, "bicycle(s)," is something I'm not sure about. If you say "'Three people own a bicycle," it could be interpreted to mean that they all share in the ownership of a single bicycle. In the present example, context would rule that out; but "Three people own bicycles," could mean that A owns one, B owns one, and C owns five - equals seven bicycles all together. (You might argue that that doesn't matter.)

Best regards, - A.

Re: expectations, expectation

Skrej — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 19:38:20 GMT

Mr. Wordy
This doesn't seem quite right. The subject of this instance of "is" is "Lewis Hamilton", not "expectation".

First, I should apologize, as Mr. Wordy is exactly right. Not sure how/why I made a boneheaded mistake confusing the subjects. Mea culpa. Thank you for correcting that glaring error, Mr. Wordy.

Optilang makes a good point as to reasons for choosing singular over plural. Without knowing the exact situation, both do work, as others have stated.

However, in my mind, I'm leaning towards the plural as more preferable (but not more correct) because I'm biased by the the phrase "causing him immense problems."

If the problems are "immense (and multiple ones at that)", I would sort of expect him to be hammered by multiple expectations, not just a single one. I suppose if the single expectation was very strong, it could lead to a lot of severe problems, but I still favor the plural.

New2Grammar

Avangi, I've been paying attention to why he is sometimes used without knowing the gender. Is this common? Or Do you know Anon?

By the way, I agree with your interpretation of what the questioner wanted. However, I don't see why the plural is more effective. Any explanation you can offer? Thanks in advance

See my thoughts above on the plural issue. As for the question of 'he' when the gender is unknown, it is indeed very common. In English, if the gender isn't specifically known, it's generally assumed to be male.

There is of course a lot of talk about this being sexist language, and some movements towards using non-gender specific pronouns, but there's of course debate over political correctness vs. tradition, blah blah blah. You may see things like 'he/she', 'they', or even the odd 's/he' being used in an attempt to avert sexist language, but it's still the norm to just use 'he' unless it's known that the subject is feminine, at least for the time being.

Re: those sort of people...

Cool Breeze — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:05:54 GMT

Those sort of is correct. The following extract is from Otto Jespersen's Essentials of English Grammar:

"In the familiar these kind of tools, those sort of speeches, we may look upon kind and sort as unchanged plurals."

CB