Search results for 'tag:Pronouns' matching tag 'Pronouns'

Re: fruit are?

Goodman — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:20:34 GMT

I don't have the luxury of being home to do the reasch in privacy.
I said it in previous post. WHAT, WHO, WHERE etc are equal relative nouns. If you agree and insist that "what" is a relative pronoun, then we should treat WHO and WHERE, the same.
By the same token, then my sentence is valid.

So if you dont mind, what would you say the right answers are to these statement:
Garlic and onion are what [makes]/ [make] the beef taste so good.
Garlic and onion are the two ingredients that [make] / [makes] the beef taste so good.
Onions [are] / [is] what gives/ give the soup that rich flavor.

Thank you for you replies!

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: where

Avangi — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:00:41 GMT

It seems to me that the relative adverb and the prepositional phrase with the relative pronoun as object (in which) are completely interchangeable here. But "where" is clearly not a conjunction.

I think "in which" is more common. I think of "where" in explaining formulae, "f = ma, where f is the applied force etc."

GG's point was that your "relative adverb where" is not refering to a noun of place as it should, but to a case, which it should not. "In which" is the correct choice.

You may say, "In a town where a case was pending,". You may not say, "In a case where a town was abandoned,". A case is not a place.

Re: fruit are?

Cool Breeze — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:30:21 GMT

Goodman

The approach to treat "what" as sigular even when the preceding pronouns are plural in my opinion is incorrect.

I see. I get your point. Grammarians treat what as a relative pronoun that has no antecedent, singular or plural. It is inclusive of the antecedent and can usually be replaced with that which, in which collocation that is the antecedent. That which is not very common and therefore may sound odd to some natives' ears but it is correct English.

I didn't believe what / that which he told me.

So, we can agree that we disagree. You consider what as plural or singular depending on the preceding word/words, and I and grammarians always consider it singular because it has no antecedent.

Re: fruit are?

Goodman — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:16:18 GMT

<<< Goodman, you are changing the pronoun. In your sentence of course make. However, what as a relative pronoun is always singular:>>>
And so is who! s what is the difference?

No I am not changing anything. I just want to prove a point. The approach to treat "what" as sigular even when the preceding pronouns are plural in my opinion is incorrect. Therefore the verb has to agree with the singuarity or plurality of the noun. I maybe wrong.
As for the sentence, I deliberately made John and Mary as a compound pronoun which should require the verb to agree with the plural form.
B - John and Mary are the only officers who make decisions around here.

(Is it âmakesâ or âmakeâ?)

Re: fruit are?

Goodman — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:18:36 GMT

<<<>>>I would agree that "makes" should stay singular to correspond to "what," even if the subject of the sentence is plural.

If who, what, how, or where, is a singular reference even the nouns or pronouns

preceding are plural, then how would you call sentence B

A- John is the one who is in charge of the food for the party- Correct.

B - John and Mary are the only officers who make decisions around here.

(Is it âmakesâ or âmakeâ?)

Re: plural reference of some singular pronouns/words

Avangi — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:48:48 GMT

Afirmative to "unless" = "if," in that respect.

Re: plural reference of some singular pronouns/words

Anonymous — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 06:55:08 GMT

Thank you. Why did you use 'were' here? Does the word 'unless' functionally the same as the word "if" in terms of it being part of the creation of a hypothetical sentence? Thank you.

Your sentence:
Personally, I'd say "his coat," unless I were strictly in the company of ladies.

Re: plural reference of some singular pronouns/words

Avangi — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:28:39 GMT

Anonymous
If you say a situation or person is hollow, you could mean they have no real ...

Hi, I'm not sure why you group a "thing-word" in with all these "people-words." The plural post-reference for a singular term is only used to avoid the awkward gender issue. In English, things don't have genders (except ships) so the problem disappears. (Ships are always female.)

"Someone left their coat in the car," is unquestionably okay for casual or conversational use. You can't be faulted for saying "Someone left his or her coat in the car," but you might be given a strange look. In formal writing, opinions vary. Unless you know your readers' preferences, to be safe you could stick with "his or her." Personally, I'd say "his coat," unless I were strictly in the company of ladies.

You might do some searches on the site to get other opinions.

- A.

Re: plural reference of some singular pronouns/words

unixfanatic — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:48:31 GMT

This is a common mistake grammatically even among native English speakers. However, it is technically correct to use a singular pronoun, even in the case you described.

Whether you want an apple or an orange, it will taste good.

In your example, you juxtaposed "situation" and "person". While possible, this is clumsy to implement, as, to be completely accurate, you would have to say,

If you say a situation or person is hollow, you could mean that it or he has no real ...

Obviously this is not good. Much better would be,

If you say a situation is hollow, you may mean it isn't important. If you say a person is hollow, you may mean the same thing.

This is redundant, but it does get the point across effectively.