 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / September 2009Who are/is infatuated with ...
Hello: In: --- She was one of those people who ARE infatuated with patent medicines and all new-fangled methods of producing health or mending it. Mark Twain, The adventures of Tom Sawyer - Page 108 ---- would you say that "are" can be replaced by "is," based on the following argument by someone else? ----- It all depends on the antecedent of "who". Case 1: If many people are infatuated with patent medicines, and she is one of them, then she is one of those people who ARE infatuated. Case 2: If there are many people, and among them a few (including her) are infatuated with patent medicines, then she is one of those people who IS infatuated. The writer always knows the size and makeup of the populations (or would not be able to form a cogent sentence), and chooses the appropriate verb. It is the reader who doesn't know, and who needs the writer's help through the choice of the correct verb number. ------- Thanks. Marius Hancu >Hello: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >are infatuated with patent medicines, then she is one of those people >who IS infatuated. >The writer always knows the size and makeup of the populations (or >would not be able to form a cogent sentence), and chooses the >appropriate verb. It is the reader who doesn't know, and who needs the >writer's help through the choice of the correct verb number. >------- Mark Twain clearly means that there are "people" in general who are infatuated, and the verb must be "are". She is one of them. Otherwise, there would be no point including the phrase "of those people". It would be simply - "She was infatuated...". Even the verb tense argues against "she" as antecedent - "She _was_ one of those people who _are_...", where "are" is present tense, meaning something generally existing.  SignatureJohn Marius Hancu filted: >Hello: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >writer's help through the choice of the correct verb number. >------- It comes down to how you parse the sentence...if it's: ...((one of those people) who ___ infatuated...) you want IS...on the other hand, if you understand it as: ...(one of those (people who ___ infatuated...)) then ARE is correct....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > It comes down to how you parse the sentence...if it's: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > then ARE is correct....r The first analysis doesn't make sense, though, certainly not without a comma after "people". Even if you include the comma, the question arises "one of which people?" The relative clause "who is/are infatuated" is surely meant to restrict the scope of "people", otherwise you may as well omit the words "of those people" entirely. In this type of construction, the plural verb is almost always logically correct. However, one often hears a singular verb, presumably because of the attraction of the singular "one". I've certainly been guilty myself. -- Guy Barry Quoth "Guy Barry" <guy.barry@blueyonder.co.uk>, and I quote: >> It comes down to how you parse the sentence...if it's: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >correct. However, one often hears a singular verb, presumably because of >the attraction of the singular "one". I've certainly been guilty myself. If we modify the example to make it a first-person subject, we get a third possibility, "am". Here are some Googled examples of the potential variety: "I am one of those people who am really glad my life is not perfect." "I am one of those people who am not fond of change." "I am one of those people who is more concerned with my legacy than with my current social standing." [sounds weird] "I am one of those people who lost my marriage because of porn." [Several other people have lost my marriage because of porn?] "I am one of those people who has piles of magazines in different rooms in the house." [not the same speaker as the preceding example] "I am one of those people who have sex all the time." "I am one of those people who could die for his religion easier than take a bath for it." (Flannery O'Connor did not choose "my") There's a discussion in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage: http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=PA689 SignatureJames > "I am one of those people who is more concerned with my legacy > than with my current social standing." [sounds weird] It does? Certainly one of those people is more concerned, and that one person is me. --Jeff SignatureThe comfort of the wealthy has always depended upon an abundant supply of the poor. --Voltaire >> "I am one of those people who is more concerned with my legacy >> than with my current social standing." [sounds weird] > > It does? Certainly one of those people is more concerned, and that one > person is me. So it can't be James, then. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>> "I am one of those people who is more concerned with my legacy >>> than with my current social standing." [sounds weird] [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So it can't be James, then. He's not one of _those_ people. I thought he was a higher class sort. --Jeff SignatureThe comfort of the wealthy has always depended upon an abundant supply of the poor. --Voltaire > In: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > would you say that "are" can be replaced by "is," based on the > following argument by someone else? It's amazing that this question, in pretty much the same form, keeps cropping up. Twain is perfectly correct. "Those people who is infatuated with patent medicines"? Dear me. The "one of" form refers to a plural pool. However that pool is defined, it calls for a correspondingly plural verb. Follett describes the error of using a singular verb in such forms as "the most widespread of all defiances of rudimentary grammar". SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > > In: > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > of using a singular verb in such forms as "the most widespread of all > defiances of rudimentary grammar". What he said. It's certainly possible to construct a sentence that logically requires the singular verb in such a situation, but the artificiality is immediately apparent. Example: "There are many people who would like to establish new standards for usage of pronoun cases. He is one of those people who is actually using those new standards already." As I said, the usage may be literally correct, but the example is very artificial. SignatureBob Lieblich Who are more adamant than ever about this [...] > It's certainly possible to construct a sentence that logically requires > the singular verb in such a situation, but the artificiality is > immediately apparent. Example: "There are many people who would like to > establish new standards for usage of pronoun cases. He is one of those > people who is actually using those new standards already." As I said, > the usage may be literally correct, but the example is very artificial. I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure that even that one passes muster (or passes the mustard). It seems to me that that "who" will be taken to refer to the closest plausible antecedent, rather than be seen as reaching back over its shoulder all the way to "He". I think you'd need a comma or some such to make the intended sense work: He is one of those people, who is actually using those new standards already. And that's rather infelicitous. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > > It's certainly possible to construct a sentence that logically requires > > the singular verb in such a situation, but the artificiality is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure that even that one > passes muster (or passes the mustard). Pass muster, cut the mustard. You can only "pass the mustard" at the dinner-table. > It seems to me that that "who" > will be taken to refer to the closest plausible antecedent, rather than > be seen as reaching back over its shoulder all the way to "He". I think > you'd need a comma or some such to make the intended sense work: > > He is one of those people, who is actually using those new standards already I don't think so in this case, because the "who" (as I read it) is intended to restrict the scope of "one", and commas are only used in non-restrictive relative clauses. In other words, the example could be rewritten as "There are many people who would like to establish new standards for usage of pronoun cases. He is one who is actually using those new standards already", omitting "of those people" entirely. Here a comma before "who" would clearly be incorrect. However, the fact that "of those people" is redundant suggests that the construction is unlikely to be used in practice. -- Guy Barry > > > It's certainly possible to construct a sentence that logically requires > > > the singular verb in such a situation, but the artificiality is [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > However, the fact that "of those people" is redundant suggests that the > construction is unlikely to be used in practice. Like the man (me, come to think of it) said, the construction is very artificial for the sake of the example. It may be that better ones can be found, but I doubt that any example of that sort cannot be improved. Which of course reinforces the basic point that logic and idiom both point to the plural verb in any "one of those who" construction. Of course, idiom often points in the opposite direction from logic, but I could care less about that. I don't see "one of those who is" as established idiom, and I nourish the hope that I never will. SignatureBob Lieblich Idiom savant, emeritus > Of course, idiom often points in the opposite direction from logic, > but I could care less about that. Could you? In British usage, the idiom is "I couldn't care less" - i.e. I care so little that it's impossible for me to care any less. Logical. In American usage, it's "I could care less" - illogical. If you could care less, why don't you? (I assume that this was a deliberate illustration of the usage, but it's interesting none the less.) -- Guy Barry >> Of course, idiom often points in the opposite direction from logic, >> but I could care less about that. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >In American usage, it's "I could care less" - illogical. If you could care >less, why don't you? "I could care less" is apparently a variation of "I couldn't care less". It is logical if considered as a sarcastic stating of the opposite to what is meant (a form of irony?). Someone observing the ruins of a newly constructed building that has collapsed under its own weight: "That's a fine example of the structural engineer's art". >(I assume that this was a deliberate illustration of the usage, but it's >interesting none the less.) SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > >In American usage, it's "I could care less" - illogical. If you could care > >less, why don't you? > > > "I could care less" is apparently a variation of "I couldn't care less". > It is logical if considered as a sarcastic stating of the opposite to > what is meant (a form of irony?). If it's ironic, why isn't the usage "I couldn't care more"? -- Guy Barry >> >In American usage, it's "I could care less" - illogical. If you could > care [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > If it's ironic, why isn't the usage "I couldn't care more"? Because it's not. That's not a facetious answer; language - particularly idiom - is often the way it is because it's the way it is. But one reason might be a lost or imagined "As if" at the start; this only works with the real rather than your theoretical version. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu Nick wrote, in <87tyypis3n.fsf@temporary-address.org.uk> on Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:33:00 +0100: > >> >In American usage, it's "I could care less" - illogical. If you could > > care [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > But one reason might be a lost or imagined "As if" at the start; this > only works with the real rather than your theoretical version. Or a compression of "I COULD care less, but it would be difficult." SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE [...] > Or a compression of "I COULD care less, but it would be difficult." I really think it's just supposed to be heard as a sarky question, perhaps with a shoulder shrug (is there another kind?): I could care less? [whiny tone of voice wanted] SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I could care less? [whiny tone of voice wanted] I always looked on at as a form of mondegreen, but speculation here is all a mere bag of shells. > I always looked on at as a form of mondegreen, but speculation here is > all a mere bag of shells. A mondegreen is a misheard song lyric, as far as I'm aware. How does that apply to "I could care less"? -- Guy Barry > >[...] > > >> Or a compression of "I COULD care less, but it would be difficult." > > >I really think it's just supposed to be heard as a sarky question, > >perhaps with a shoulder shrug (is there another kind?): I assume "sarky" (which I've heard or seen only from you) is from "sarcasm", but is there a hint of "shirty"? > > I could care less? [whiny tone of voice wanted] > > I always looked on at as a form of mondegreen, but speculation here is > all a mere bag of shells. "Looked on it"? All this is indeed mere speculation, but I'd like to propose another speculation (with apologies to Laura, since it's the same one I always propose). In Spanish, "en absoluto" (absolutely) can mean "absolutely not", http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=596330 and "en mi vida" (in my life) can mean "never in my life", with no other negative in the sentence. http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1179406 Apparently what has happened is that when a phrase is frequently used with a negative, you can dispense with the negative. No sarcasm or "as if" or anything is required. I can't think of any other examples in English, but I suspect this is what happened to the "n't". -- Jerry Friedman > Apparently what has happened is that when a phrase is frequently used > with a negative, you can dispense with the negative. No sarcasm or > "as if" or anything is required. I can't think of any other examples > in English, but I suspect this is what happened to the "n't". What about "don't sneeze more than you can help"? This should logically be "don't sneeze more than you can't help" (as pointed out by Fowler and others). -- Guy Barry >> Apparently what has happened is that when a phrase is frequently used >> with a negative, you can dispense with the negative. No sarcasm or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "don't sneeze more than you can't help" (as pointed out by Fowler and > others). I don't know. The "can" version makes perfect sense to me. Analyzing it, however, is more than I can do. SignatureMaria Conlon > > What about "don't sneeze more than you can help"? This should > > logically be > > "don't sneeze more than you can't help" (as pointed out by Fowler and > > others). > I don't know. The "can" version makes perfect sense to me. Analyzing it, > however, is more than I can do. "I can't help sneezing" means "I can't avoid sneezing". The intended meaning is "don't sneeze more than you can't avoid sneezing", so in strictly logical terms one might expect "don't sneeze more than you can't help [sneezing]". "More than you can help" is, strictly speaking, nonsense - it would be better to say "don't sneeze if you can help it". But the usage is so established now that it's unlikely to change. Curiously, "unless you can help it" is sometimes used in the same sense as "if you can help it", demonstrating the absurdity even more clearly. -- Guy Barry > > Apparently what has happened is that when a phrase is frequently used > > with a negative,you can dispense with the negative. No sarcasm or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "don't sneeze more than you can't help" (as pointed out by Fowler and > others). I think that's evidence against my speculation, since that form didn't evolve from a logical form by losing a negative. It's also evidence against the sarcasm theory, I'd say. But it's not very good evidence for anything because it's so hard to analyze. -- Jerry Friedman [...] [...] >>> I really think it's just supposed to be heard as a sarky question, >>> perhaps with a shoulder shrug (is there another kind?): > > I assume "sarky" (which I've heard or seen only from you) is from > "sarcasm", but is there a hint of "shirty"? [...] "Sarky" is a common Briticism, not just an Ericism. In my experience its sense doesn't differ from "sarcastic" (in the Brit sense, of course). SignatureMike. On Sep 28, 2:39 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote: > [...]>> Eric Walker wrote: > [...] [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "Sarky" is a common Briticism, not just an Ericism. In my experience its > sense doesn't differ from "sarcastic" (in the Brit sense, of course). Okay, I guess I just hadn't run into it. -- Jerry Friedman >> I assume "sarky" (which I've heard or seen only from you) is from >> "sarcasm", but is there a hint of "shirty"? >[...] > >"Sarky" is a common Briticism, not just an Ericism. In my experience its >sense doesn't differ from "sarcastic" (in the Brit sense, of course). AmE seems to have the intrusive "n", and they tend to write it as "snarky". Likewise, they tend to write "pernickety" as "persnickety". SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk Quoth Steve Hayes <hayesmstw@hotmail.com>, and I quote: >>> I assume "sarky" (which I've heard or seen only from you) is from >>> "sarcasm", but is there a hint of "shirty"? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >AmE seems to have the intrusive "n", and they tend to write it as "snarky". Does "snarky" mean the same as "sarky/sarcastic"? The OED defines it as "Irritable, short-tempered, 'narky'." The oldest example is British, from 1906: "E. NESBIT Railway Children ii. 49 Don't be snarky, Peter. It isn't our fault." >Likewise, they tend to write "pernickety" as "persnickety". Maybe it's the "s" that's intrusive in both words. SignatureJames > Quoth Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com>, and I quote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The oldest example is British, from 1906: "E. NESBIT Railway > Children ii. 49 Don't be snarky, Peter. It isn't our fault." ... M-W says, "Etymology: dial. snark to annoy, perhaps alteration of nark to irritate Date: 1906 1 : crotchety, snappish 2 : sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner <snarky lyrics>" [Attn Jesse Sheidlower: sense missing from OED] -- Jerry Friedman > [...] > [...] [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "Sarky" is a common Briticism, not just an Ericism. In my experience its > sense doesn't differ from "sarcastic" (in the Brit sense, of course). It can be used in one slightly different say. You can say "ooh, sarky" when someone says something particularly cutting. A bit like "saucer of milk for table 3 please" SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu >>[...] >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I always looked on at as a form of mondegreen, but speculation here is > all a mere bag of shells. I used the phrase "a mere bagatelle" one time while driving to work with a carload of people. Someone in the back asked: "A bag of what?" SignatureMaria Conlon >>> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I used the phrase "a mere bagatelle" one time while driving to work with > a carload of people. Someone in the back asked: "A bag of what?" We've got an 1930s bagatelle in the house - my parents gave it (a sort of low-value family heirloom) to Son on his 21st birthday. http://www.witzigs.co.uk/detail.asp?stockid=00700 SignatureDavid >>>[...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I used the phrase "a mere bagatelle" one time while driving to work with >a carload of people. Someone in the back asked: "A bag of what?" I was quite a sophisticate in my early years (I've managed to outgrow that to become the shlaub I am), and my first exposure to "a bag of shells" was on the Honeymooners. I was shocked at the ignorance of Ralph Kramden. Who knew from mondegreens? >"Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message >> "I could care less" is apparently a variation of "I couldn't care less". >> It is logical if considered as a sarcastic stating of the opposite to >> what is meant (a form of irony?). > >If it's ironic, why isn't the usage "I couldn't care more"? Perhaps the equivalent of "I care not at all" is "I care anymore". SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >> Of course, idiom often points in the opposite direction from logic, >> but I could care less about that. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > (I assume that this was a deliberate illustration of the usage, but it's > interesting none the less.) No. No. Please. No. I'd rather you tortured me with tunes. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >> Of course, idiom often points in the opposite direction from logic, >> but I could care less about that. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >In American usage, it's "I could care less" - illogical. If you could care >less, why don't you? http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxcouldc.html http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.