In Numbers^x, Conversations^x, Plurals^x

CalifJim wrote: For example, in ordinary conversation, I tend to treat "none of" as number transparent, but this is a big no-no for most (prescriptive) grammarians. So do I. If I remember correctly, the OED traces the plural usage back to OE. So we're not alone. MrP

Arggghhh! I've created a monster! This is a box of tools that was left here by American soldiers. (the box was left) This is a box of tools that were left here by American soldiers. (the tools were left) Exactly! This has nothing to do with number transparency. You know, I don't...

You've made some very respectable guesses! (I'm convinced that there are no right answers to this question, by the way! ) The It's or It is or It was and the who are invariable in all versions of this formula. The controversy revolves around two other factors. Should the pronoun...

CalifJim wrote: You are compounding the problem here, however, by using "number of" together with "there is/are", which, at least in relaxed style, can almost always be "there is" no matter what the grammatical number of the following expression. So, "there is" can be used, but not in very...

Charlotte, Yes, we can accept it quite nicely as correct informal language! "there's" (much more than "there is", by the way) is becoming neutral as to number. As time goes on, it's quite possible that "there are" will drop out of the spoken language. As it is now, in everyday conversation...

Dear Mr. Micawber, I received yesterday the corections in the translation and was extremely happy with it. When I copied and paste your corrections and read it again, some sentences read more smooth then before. I happen to shift parts of sentences from left to richt and the other way...