Search results for 'tag:Plural subject tag:Constructions' matching tags 'Plural subject' and 'Constructions'

Re: Plural Subject, Pluarl Verb, Singular Object

AlpheccaStars — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 04:58:53 GMT

Ditch
But can anyone think of a construction with a plural subject and a singular object that implies individual ownership, but which doesn't involve any modifers?

Only when it is really obvious, such as an innate characteristic::

Male lions have a mane, females do not.

Palamino horses have a flaxen mane and tail and a contrasting golden coat.

Re: Plural Subject, Pluarl Verb, Singular Object

Ditch — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 03:39:27 GMT

Thank you both for shedding some light on this!

"The key word is 'most'."

I suspected as much. What if the sentence is modified by an adverb?

"Sometimes, the cats have a collar."
"Usually, the cats have a collar."
"Often, the cats have a collar."
"Typically, the cats have a collar."

To me, they all sound right.

What about, "A lot of cats have a collar"?

Obviously, it doesn't always come down to modifiers.

"The players had an objection."

But can anyone think of a construction with a plural subject and a singular object that implies individual ownership, but which doesn't involve any modifers?

Re: if

Hoa Thai — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:06:20 GMT

Marius Hancu wrote:
It's definitely subjunctive mood. But it's not easy.

Dear Marius Hancu,

I hope you won't kick me out.

From grammatical point of view, I totally agree with you. The if ...., ... would construct gives us a clue that subjunctive is in play, especially Today is the first word appears in the text. To support that, here is what I got from American Heritage Book of English usage:

"The past subjunctive is sometimes called the were subjunctive, since were is the only subjunctive form that is distinct from the indicative past tense. It appears chiefly in if clauses and in a few other constructions expressing hypothetical conditions:
.....
if clausesâthe traditional rules. According to traditional rules, you use the subjunctive to describe an occurrence that you have presupposed to be contrary to fact: if I were ten years younger, if America were still a British Colony. The verb in the main clause of these sentences must then contain the verb would or (less frequently) should.

However, here is the part telling me that now a days, people tend to substitute subjunctive past tense with indicative past tense:

"if clausesâthe reality. In practice, of course, many people ignore the rules. In fact, over the last 200 years even well-respected writers have tended to use the indicative was where the traditional rule would require the subjunctive were. A usage such as If I was the only boy in the world may break the rules, but it sounds perfectly natural."

So, could you accept my reasoning for guessing that the author uses indicative past tense were and it just happens 'were' must be there to support the 'and' in the plural subject?

Thanks and Best Regards,
Hoa Thai

Re: cheerleader

LearningNerd — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 17:49:17 GMT

The first one, because -- actually, I'm not quite sure how to explain it. Well, a quick search on google for "thing after thing was" has about 100 results, while "thing after thing were" has none.

Hmm. As I understand it, the only way to form a plural subject out of two singular nouns is to join them with the word "and". Other joining words like "or" require a singular verb, and I guess "after" does, too. There's probably a word for this sort of "one after another" construction -- does anyone know?

Re: There is/are

rvw — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 07:49:53 GMT

Grammar demands a plural verb with a plural subject. Are should be used in all of Selvakumar's and Katarina's examples.

But Webster's Dictionary of English Usage points out that there is a "...long-standing propensity for there is or there's in every case, even when the following subject is clearly plural and there are no complications to cloud our minds. Jespersen finds the same construction in Danish, Russian, and Italian, and dates it back in English to the 15th century."

Common or not, there is with a plural subject is "...generally avoided in the literary style."

Re: Plural problem

rvw — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:03:14 GMT

About there is, there are Webster's Dictionary of English Usage says:

Jesperson notes that the invariable singular occurs mostly in the colloquial style -- speech and speechlike prose -- and is generally avoided in the literary style. That observation accords with our evidence. In the more complex constructions, you are best guided by your own sense of what sounds right in the particular context to avoid awkwardness and maintain the smooth flow of the sentence.

To me There are an orange, an apple, and a pear on the plate sounds right because the constituents of the plural subject immediately and closely follow the verb.

Re: Open/opened... close/closed

just the truth — Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:07:56 GMT

I'm wondering what the differences are in the following sentences? I know(a) sounds awkward, but what about (b), (c)? open/opened... close/closed...

(a) ???The mall is opened five days a week.

Not at all awkward IF the meaning points to the fact that some person is in charge of opening the mall. Then it's just the passive. As you likely intend it, Jay, it's, as you note, highly questionable.

(b) The mall is open five days a week.

Refers to the state of the mall.

(c) The mall opens five days a week.

Same as (b), it relates to the routine, the habitual, the scheduled. For some very commonly used structures in English, we use an active construction like this even though it's impossible for the mall to open itself.

(d) Many malls are closed on Mondays.

A variant of b & c.

(e) *Many malls closes on Mondays.*

Ungrammatical with the plural subject and singular verb. I think I know what your next question will be but I'll let you ask it anyway.

Re: "There/Here is" with plural subject allowed?

eagle2l84 — Mon, 03 Jan 2005 22:56:53 GMT

Hi,

it's me, Ralf, the starter of this thread. Thanks for your answers so far. A post in another thread pointed me to the "American Heritage - Book of English Usage", where I found this section:

According to the standard rule, when the pronoun there precedes a verb such as be, seem, or appear, the verb agrees in number with the following grammatical subject: There is a great Italian deli across the street. There are fabulous wildflowers in the hills. There seems to be a blueberry pie cooking in the kitchen. There seem to be a few trees between the green and me. But people often disregard this rule and use a singular verb with a plural subject, especially when speaking or when using the contraction thereâs. The Usage Panel dislikes this construction, however. Seventy-nine percent reject the sentence Thereâs only three things you need to know about this book. But when thereâs is followed by a compound subject whose first element is singular, the panel feels differently. Fifty-six percent of the Usage Panel accepts the sentence In each of us thereâs a dreamer and a realist, and 32 percent more accept it in informal usage. The panel is even more accepting of the sentence When you get to the stop light, thereâs a gas station on the left and a grocery store on the right; 58 percent accept it in formal usage, while 37 percent more accept it in informal usage. Although this usage would seem to violate the rules of subject and verb agreement, the attraction of the verb to the singular noun phrase following it is so strong that it is hard to avoid the construction entirely.

While this clarifies the usage for AmE, I still wonder how it used around the world.

Hoping for more to come,

cu