Search results for 'tag:Singular nouns tag:English grammar' matching tags 'Singular nouns' and 'English grammar'

Re: Difference between using much and many

CalifJim — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 06:51:18 GMT

Guest
Please send me the grammar rule for using much and many in sentences and the reasons behind this usage.

much is used with singular nouns. much butter, much water, not much information, not much hope, Much of it is ...

many is used with plural nouns. many cars, many letters, not many horses, not many details, Many of them are ...

There is no particular reason behind the usage. It's just a convention of English grammar.

I don't think it's necessary to consider whether a noun is countable; the singular-plural rule is sufficient because an uncountable can't be used in the plural anyway.

Re: Standard spoken English

Anonymous — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:00:04 GMT

Something to chew on:

THE NOTION OF STANDARD SPOKEN GRAMMAR

The term âstandard grammarâ is most typically associated with written language,
and is usually considered to be characteristic of the recurrent usage of adult,
educated native speakers of a language. Standard grammar ideally reveals no
particular regional bias. Thus âStandard British Englishâ grammar consists of items
and forms that are found in the written usage of adult educated native speakers
from Wales, Scotland and England and those Northern Irish users who consider
themselves part of the British English speech community.

The typical sources of evidence for standard usage are literary texts, quality
journalism, academic and professional writing, etc. Standard grammar is given the
status of the official record of educated usage by being written down in grammar
books and taught in schools and universities.

Spoken transcripts often have frequent occurrences of items and structures
considered incorrect according to the norms of standard written English. However,
many such forms are frequently and routinely used by adult, educated native speakers.

Examples of such structures are split infinitives (e.g. We decided to immediately sell it),
double negation (e.g. He wonât be late I donât think, as compared to I donât think he will
be late), singular nouns after plural measurement expressions (e.g. Heâs about six foot
tall), the use of contracted forms such as gonna (going to), wanna (want to), and so on.

Standard spoken English grammar will therefore be different from standard
written English grammar in many respects if we consider âstandardâ to be a
description of the recurrent spoken usage of adult native speakers. What may be
considered ânon-standardâ in writing may well be âstandardâ in speech.
Speech and writing are not independent. Although some forms of spoken
grammar do not appear in writing (unless in written dialogues), there is
considerable overlap and there is an increasing range of forms appearing in
informal written texts which previously were only considered acceptable in
speech. In 120 the presence of typically spoken grammatical forms contexts as emails and internet chat-room exchanges is discussed.

From: The Cambridge Grammar of English (GCE)

Re: "and" and comma

Lovek323 — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:06:34 GMT

Question 1
Although the question has already been answered, I should like to comment on why arise is the correct choice. The subject of the clause should any difference arise is difference, which is singular and third person. One of the fundamental principles of English grammar is that the subject and verb must agree in number and person. Thus, as the subject is third person singular, the verb must also be third person singular. (A more thorough explanation would discuss number and person.)

For all verbs except to be, number and person only affect the present tense. The -s ending is used for the third person singular and the uninflected (unchanged) form is used for the rest:

My neighbours annoy me.
My dog annoys me.

The uninflected form annoy is used when the subject is a plural noun phrase ("my neighbours" above) or one of the pronouns I, we, you (sg. or pl.), or they. The -s ending is appended when the subject is a singular noun phrase or one of the third person singular personal pronouns (he, she, or it).

Question 2
As has already been pointed out, neither of the proposed sentences was correct. A sufficient response has been given as to the reason behind the choice of a semi colon, even if it was unnecessarily cerebral (just kidding).

Re: Is this noun singular or plural?

Goodman — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:36:38 GMT

CalifJim wrote:

There is are a lot of questions which need/ ~~needs~~ to be answered.¹

There ~~was /~~ ~~were~~ was a great deal of confusions at that momentâ¦..²

There ~~was~~ were a few among us who still believed ~~/believes~~ that â¦â¦³
___________________

¹'a lot of' is number transparent. Make the agreement with questions.

² 'a great deal of' can only be followed by singular noun. The agreeing verb must take this into account.

³ 'a few' is not number transparent. It is inherently plural. Make the agreement with the plural 'a few'. Tense agreement would make for a smoother effect here as well.

^{1, 2, 3} All three of these use the there construction. In these the verb after there must agree with the relevant noun which follows the verb.

CJ

Thanks CJ,

You know, I must have misunderstood or been taught the substandard English grammar early on.

All the âtransparentâ phrases, as you called them, were in my mind of singular in nature. i.e. there is a lot/ a few / great deal/ plenty ofâ¦etc..

What got me was the âaâ which lead me to think of it as âoneâ and therefore associated with âthere isâ. Thanks for straightening me out!

Re: Possessive of singular noun that ends in S

Bokeh — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:31:15 GMT

Tanit wrote:
To make the possessive form of a SINGULAR noun that ends in -s, some style guides say to add just an apostrophe ('); others say you should add an apostrophe and s ('s). Some say that either way is correct.

I find older grammar books, for example "A Modern English Grammar" (Oxford Unifersity Press 1965, 21 Shillings), goes with "Dickens's novel" form whereas later grammar books say either is acceptable, which points towards a dumbing down of standards over the last 40 years.

Re: Possessive of singular noun that ends in S

Tanit — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:19:36 GMT

Anonymous wrote:

what's the rule in english grammar for forming the possessive of a singular noun that ends in s?

When I was in high school, I was taught to add only an apostrophe and not an "s". Only later did I discover that both forms are possible.

Read:

" To make the possessive form of a SINGULAR noun that ends in -s, some style guides say to add just an apostrophe ('); others say you should add an apostrophe and s ('s). Some say that either way is correct.
The best answer: when dealing with SINGULAR nouns, find out what the expectations are wherever you're writing and go by that. In most cases, you can just ask your teacher what he or she prefers. (...)
So, to give a couple of examples...
For "nucleus" (singular noun ending in -s), write is as:
nucleus' or nucleus's
depending on the rules where you're writing. "

on this page, second issue.

And, from the BBC website:

" However, if the singular noun ends in âsâ as in your example, Everson, you can either just add an apostrophe (â) or apostrophe 's' (âs):
- 'All of Dickensâ novels have now been adapted for television.'
- 'All of Dickensâs novels have now been adapted for television.'
Note that these spellings are pronounced differently. If you simply add an apostrophe, the pronunciation does not change, but if you add apostrophe 's' (âs), the possessive is pronounced /iz/.
With singular nouns ending in double 's' (...) I think it is more normal to add apostrophe 's' (âs) because the spelling with apostrophe s then indicates the pronunciation required:
- 'The bossâs secretary resigned.'
- 'The princessâs diamonds were worth two million pounds.' "

Possessive of singular noun that ends in S

Anonymous — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 21:22:53 GMT

what's the rule in english grammar for forming the possessive of a singular noun that ends in s?

Re: Doubts about paper (I)

Clive — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 06:14:48 GMT

Hi Davkett,

Thank you for the interesting response. I've been thinking about it, and I have a few comments.

I'm not familar with the site you quoted, and I don't know its credentials. I don't agree with what it baldly says about Singular Nouns (ending with -s) .... eg James' room or Chris Jonesâ dog. I would put an 'apostrophe + s' in both cases.

However, I looked this point up in Swan's 'Practical English Usage' (Section 505.3 in my edition). He gives as examples Charles's wife but Socrates' last words. He doesn't discuss the matter.

I also looked it up in Thomson and Martinet's 'A Practical English Grammar' Section 14). They say classical names ending in s usually add only the apostrophe. Note the usually. They continue Other names ending in s can take 's or the apostrophe alone eg Mr. Jones's or Mr. Jones' house.

I also googled a bit on Sextus Empiricus. There are hits both ways, although perhaps fewer with the 's. However, the hits with 's include some sites and articles that look quite scholarly.

Finally, here's my personal opinion. None of these sources seem to discuss the reasons behind their 'rules'. I think it's because of the pronunciation. We say Socrateez and it sounds good, but it's harder to say Socrateezez and it doesn't sound good. For this reason, my feeling is that, for classical names that end in 'es', I'd omit the s in speech, but I'd be quite happy to leave it in a text that is not pronounced aloud, where it would look fine and sound is not an issue. Now, consider classical names that don't end in es. It seems fine to me to say the Cyclops's eye. It also seems fine to me to say Empiricusez, and it doesn't sound bad.

So, that's why my personal preference is to say Empiricus's . . .

Anyway, thanks again for raising such an interesting issue.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: Collective nouns

Jussive — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 15:30:56 GMT

Anonymous wrote:

(Oops! Didn't take time to log in-- MM)

Well, I am now deep in the bowels of Quirk, et al, Jussive-- and I think there may be some--ahem!-- lack of clarity among everyone, including the texts, between group nouns and collective nouns, among other things. Group nouns (according to the book in my lap at the moment) are those you mention as taking an item of: a herd of cattle, a gaggle of geese, etc-- where herd (not cattle) is the group noun. Here, they list family and committee, for instance, among the group nouns referring to people, with the comment that there is often a choice whether to use a singular or plural verb, based on notional concord-- i.e. what the speaker is thinking.

Meanwhile, in another section (5.78, to be precise), they are comparing unmarked plural nouns-- people (sing. person), police (sing. policeman/officer), cattle (sing. cow?) with collective nouns, which 'differ from other nouns in taking as pronoun referents either singular it or plural they without change of number in the noun'. In other words, they are not uncountable, but the singular form can be in concord with a singular and/or a plural verb, while the plural form acts normally:

The committee has met and it has rejected the proposal.
The committee have met and they have rejected the proposal.
The committees have met and they have rejected the proposal.

Incidentally, to hark back to the original question, Quirk lists examples of 'collective proper names': Parliament, the Vatican, the United States.

That's as far as I am prepared to carry the research tonight-- over to you!

MM

Ok, maybe we can get somewhere near the bottom of this.

Lets get something straight first: unmarked plural = irregular plural â right?

We are in agreement that âchildâ has an irregular plural in âchildrenâ. Incidentally, I canât see how the singular of âcattleâ can be âcowâ as it refers to any ruminant animal. Is it that âcowâ shares a plural with âbuffaloâ? Maybe one word can be the plural for several nouns. Hmm

Anyway, I still cannot see how âpoliceâ can be an unmarked plural. I have now checked my Oxford English Grammar book and it classes police as a noun that is always in the plural, like 'arms' (weapons) or 'earnings'. These are nouns that donât have singular forms. I guess the police (collectively) is more than just the plural of âpolicemanâ. Besides, wouldnât that be âpolicemenâ? As far as Iâm aware, this is why âpoliceâ is listed under one type of collective noun, even though such words donât apply to the âcollective nounâ test you proposed, i.e. whether the noun can be represented by a plural or singular pronoun. I think such a test would distinguish a group noun, perhaps.

Words such as âluggageâ or âclothingâ donât pass such a test either:

âThe luggage is here. It has arrived.â

âThe luggage is here. They have arrived.â (Obviously, this is wrong.)

Such words are always singular, yet, identify a collection of things, and, therefore, they are yet another type of collective noun.

So we have three types. The three have different properties as I have shown. None of them are simply the plural of singular nouns and they all represent a collection of things or people and thus are 'collective nouns'.

Ok over to you, my friend.

<edited text size>

Re: Basic Rules Of Grammar

CalifJim — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:46:52 GMT

Say the right words in the right order.
Make subjects and verbs agree in number.
Use the correct case for all pronouns.
Add "ed" to form the past tense.
Add "s" to form plurals.
Add "'s" to form possessives.
Invert subject and verb in a question.
Don't use a countable singular noun without an article.
Put adjectives in front of the nouns they modify.
Put compliments before adjuncts.
Put a form of "don't" before the verb to negate it.

Those are the basics. There are a lot of exceptions, of course. To understand English grammar well, you need to go very far beyond the basics.

CJ