ATEG Archives

January 2013

ATEG@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:40:40 -0500
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (3151 bytes) , text/html (5 kB)
Paul,

Here's another verb-number contrast where a word-vs.-phrase analysis might
have difficulty.

3. I've made thousands in some years and millions in others. *Millions is
better.
*4. What resulted when the WHO made the new anti-viral drug available
throughout the world? *Millions are better.

*It's hard to avoid a purely conceptual analysis of items-taken-as-a-whole
vs. items-taken-as-separate-entities.

Dick



On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Paul,
>
> But is the subject in #2 just a word? We can't isolate "glasses," since
> the speaker is not critiquing the stemware, and a simple word/phrase
> distinction doesn't quite work here. I suppose you could say the subject is
> "six glasses of wine" in #1 but only "glasses of wine" in #2.
>
> Dick
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>>  Dik,
>>
>> A more pragmatic analysis might be that in #1, the subject is a phrase,
>> and in #2, the subject is a word.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
>> improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>> *From:* Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Sent:* Sun, January 20, 2013 10:21:27 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: Subject/verb agreement
>>
>> What this discussion demonstrates is that simple rules are not always
>> quite so simple, and that conceptual understanding trumps a literal
>> application of rules.
>>
>> The simple rule is: "A verb must agree in number with the head noun of
>> the subject."
>>
>> Taken literally, we'd have to say "an estimated 210,000 *gallons *a day *are
>> *coming" [we also wouldn't be able to use "an"] and "a *slew *of
>> officials *has *been exposed." But in the former we are not picturing
>> individual gallons but a mass of oil. The reverse is true in the latter,
>> where we see individuals, not a mass.
>>
>> We can illustrate this notion with the following sentences, where a
>> change in the verb's number alters meaning:
>>
>>      1. Six glasses of wine is bad.
>>      2. Six glasses of wine are bad.
>>
>> The first, we're thinking an overindulgence resulting in inebriation; the
>> second, a critique at a wine tasting.
>>
>> Dick
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 2:27 AM, John Chorazy <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Without my own comments on these sentences or a longer preface, I'll
>>> just submit them and ask for your thoughts on subject/verb agreement. Thank
>>> you...
>>>
>>>
>>> According to NOAA, an estimated 210,000 gallons (5,000 barrels) a day
>>> is coming from the remaining ruptures (PBS).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In recent months, a slew of low-level Communist officials as well as a
>>> few high ranking ones —most notably the vice party chief of the
>>> southwestern province of Sichuan, Li Chuncheng — have been exposed by
>>> local media and dismissed from their positions after their sexual
>>> peccadilloes came to light (NBC News).
>>>
>>
>>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/


ATOM RSS1 RSS2