I learned that particular exception in school, that if two nouns are very closely related the subject can be treated as singular. This works particularly well when there is an article on the first noun and not on the second.
Herb
Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karl Hagen [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: June 17, 2008 1:58 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: a subject-verb agreement question
Also note that when you go back to the 18th century and earlier, it's
fairly easy to find examples where conjunction with 'and' does not make
the NP take a plural verb, even though current usage would definitely
require the plural (i.e., we're not talking about instances like
"drinking and driving _is_ illegal"),
Hence you have Shakespeare writing:
"The nature of our people,
Our city's institutions, and the terms
For common justice, you are as pregnant in
As art and practice _hath_ enriched any
That we remember." (Measure for Measure, I.i)
Even Lowth did not wholly disapprove of it. Here are his remarks. Note
particularly his rationalization of the exceptions:
'Two or more Nouns in the Singular Number, joined together by one or
more Copulative Conjunctions (1), have Verbs, Nouns, and Pronouns,
agreeing with them in the Plural Number: as, "_Socrates and Plato were_
wise; _they were_ the most eminent _Philosophers_ of Greece." But
sometimes, after an enumeration of particulars thus connected, the Verb
follows in the Singular Number; and is understood as applied to each of
the preceding terms: as,--"The glorious Inhabitants of those sacred
places, where nothing but light and blessed immortality, no shadow of
matter for tears, discontentments, griefs, and uncomfortable passions to
work upon; but all _joy, tranquility, and peace_, even for ever and ever
_doth dwell_." Hooker B. i. 4. "Sand, and salt, and a mass of iron, _is_
easier to bear, than a man without understanding" Eccles xxii. 15 (1).'
With Lindley Murray and later writers, though, this exception is removed.
Craig Hancock wrote:
> The OED lists a number of uses of "As well as" in conjunctive role,
> dating way back. This, from Mallory, is typical: 1470-85 MALORY Arthur
> IX. xxxvi. 397 Whan men ben hote in dedes of armes ofte they hurte
> their frendes as wel as their foes.
>
> In this example, you could think "their friends" as news and "their
> foes" almost as given, so that may be a useful pattern to emulate.
>
> It's interesting that their one example of a structure in subject
> position is treated as singular: 1821 CRAIG Lect. Drawing etc. vii. 404
> The back-ground as well as other parts is dotted or stippled.
>
> I think the commentary in Karl's post is by far the most thoughtful.
> In a nutshell, common sense would call for some flexibility even
> though prescriptive grammars present the singular as "correct."
>
> Craig
>
> 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/
>
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/
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/
|
