Search results for 'tag:Singular verbs tag:Conditionals' matching tags 'Singular verbs' and 'Conditionals'

Re: indirect speech?

Kooyeen — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:58:27 GMT

Eh, Rothkowitz, this has sometjhing to do with what I just asked! (see the thread "If I knew what you knew")

It seems both "I wish I could say I was happy" and "I wish I could say I'm happy" can be used with the same meaning. Anyway, I think that the sentence with "was" sounds better, maybe because of a kind of tense agreement.

You also wrote "You could say I'm a happy person"... which is similar to "I'd say this sentence is not correct."

"I'd say this sentence is not correct" sounds good without "was" because it is not part of a conditional structure, it's just a way to express your opinion. But if you put it in a conditional environment, you'll get: "If you didn't put a singular verb in that sentence, I'd say that sentence was not correct."

I'll probably be completely wrong Rothkowitz, but since you are asking the same thing I'm asking in another thread, I decided to tell you my opinion.

Re: If it WERE/WAS mine...

Philip — Wed, 03 May 2006 16:27:33 GMT

Mister Micawber wrote:
In all indicative mood sentences, it is a singular pronoun taking the singular verb. The example that you have exhumed, however, is a use of the subjunctive were used in conditional sentences stating a present condition contrary to fact (the trophy is not in fact the speaker's). Were appears with all subjects in this type of sentence:

Unfortunately, there are those well-meaning, educated folk who misuse the subjunctive after "if", when a simple indicative is needed: "I did't know if he were coming or not" is not an example of contrary-to-fact and should be "I didn't know if he was coming or not". This is quite different from "If he were coming I would bake a cake" (but we know that he isn't coming).

Re: If it WERE/WAS mine...

Mister Micawber — Wed, 03 May 2006 01:15:24 GMT

In all indicative mood sentences, it is a singular pronoun taking the singular verb. The example that you have exhumed, however, is a use of the subjunctive were used in conditional sentences stating a present condition contrary to fact (the trophy is not in fact the speaker's). Were appears with all subjects in this type of sentence:

If it were raining now, I would be very wet.
If I were king, I would rid the nation of its woes.
If she were cuter, I would ask her for a date.
If they were rich, they wouldn't be borrowing my car.
etc.

This use of the subjunctive is quite formal these days, and you will often see was in the place of were with1st and 3rd person singular subjects.

Re: When to use 'is' and 'are' has caused an argument in the office

Brutus — Sun, 05 Dec 2004 01:37:13 GMT

Calif Jim

I used past tense in the 'posing' example because I was imagining a press article describing the event. When we say "Manchester United are (or is) posing for photos", we are doing so in the belief that the listener or reader will infer we mean the players - or at least those players who are present at the event - and possibly the coaches and certain other non-playing staff as well. If we mean that, there is every chance that we have successfully, yet succinctly, conveyed our meaning. Few people would think we meant each and every employee and shareholder of the company.

Mr P

I am not being 'overly strict'. I am not advocating that the standards of grammar we use in formal (e.g. legal) letters need be adhered to in casual conversation - that would be absurd. If I say to my friend "Manchester United aren't doing very well in the league this year", then my intended meaning is clear even if my grammar has a minor fault. Isabel's original post was talking about a legal correspondence and, as a secretary, she feels she has a responsibility to advise her boss in the event of him making such an error. As I understand her, she is asking whether she was correct in asserting that the singular verbs (is, has) and the pronoun (it) should be used where the referent is National Coal Board. She most certainly was correct in my view.

As for your latter point about "Manchester United ran out onto the pitch", of course the statement refers to the players and, as such, the plural should be used. Manchester United, either as a corporate body or as a cultural concept can't 'run' anywhere.

As far as I am aware, the only occasion in which the use of a plural to describe a single entity is permissible occurs when the subjunctive mood applies (e.g. "if I WERE you", "if he WERE here"). This only happens when a verb is used to indicate a situation or condition that is hypothetical, doubtful, or conditional.

Brutus.

Re: Sweeney Todd

pedant — Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:23:19 GMT

You're right that the subject "none" calls for a singular verb, but the "if" makes the clause conditional, so "were" is correct. Similar examples: "If it were up to me..." and "If I were you..."

Sweeney Todd is a musical about a murderous barber.