 |
 | 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 / January 2010IS or ARE
Which is the correct usage: - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted. - A few people are amused, but the larger number ARE disgusted. I can see it either way. Number is a singular noun, so IS, but it refers to multiple people so ARE. I'm not sure here. Peter Morris asks about: > - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted. > - A few people are amused, but the larger number ARE disgusted. "Are" is correct.  SignatureMark Brader, Toronto "Information! ... We want information!" msb@vex.net -- The Prisoner > Peter Morris asks about: >> - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted. >> - A few people are amused, but the larger number ARE disgusted. > > "Are" is correct. I would have thought it's debatable. I would re-word the sentence anyway, to something like "... but more are disgusted". Shorter and simpler. I'm not sure "THE larger number" makes sense anyway. Shouldn't it be "A larger number"? SignatureLong-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions. Peter Morris: >>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted. >>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number ARE disgusted. Mark Brader: >> "Are" is correct. "Annily": > I would have thought it's debatable. You would have been wrong. > I would re-word the sentence anyway, to something like "... but more > are disgusted". That works too, yes. > I'm not sure "THE larger number" makes sense anyway. Shouldn't > it be "A larger number"? Works either way for me. SignatureMark Brader "It's okay for us to love our country, Toronto but we ought to spend most of our time msb@vex.net making our country lovable." -- Andy Rooney > Peter Morris: >>>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> I would re-word the sentence anyway, to something like "... but more >> are disgusted". ......... 'but most are disgusted' sounds better to me. >> Peter Morris: >>>>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > ......... 'but most are disgusted' sounds better to me. Yes, OK. I was taking it as "a larger number", in which case "more" would be correct, but I suppose "the larger number" implies everyone other than the "few", in which case "most" is valid and "the larger number" just means "the majority". SignatureLong-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions. Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:50:52 +1300 from Fred <reg@parachute.net.nz>: > > Peter Morris: > >>>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > ......... 'but most are disgusted' sounds better to me. I don't think we can assume that "amused" and"disgusted" are the only alternatives. Perhaps 5% are amused, 10% are disgusted, and 85% are indifferent. In that case "most" would be distinctly wrong. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... > Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:50:52 +1300 from Fred <reg@parachute.net.nz>: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > alternatives. Perhaps 5% are amused, 10% are disgusted, and 85% are > indifferent. In that case "most" would be distinctly wrong. I'd agree with that if it referred to a few, and 'a' larger number. But it doesn't. > Peter Morris: >>>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You would have been wrong. Care to explain your reasoning and/or authority for this view? In any case, anything is debatable, and we are doing that now. SignatureLong-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions. Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:43:43 +1030 from annily <annily@annily.invalid>: > > Peter Morris asks about: > >> - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > simpler. I'm not sure "THE larger number" makes sense anyway. Shouldn't > it be "A larger number"? I think "the" better than "a". Only two numbers are involved, the number of amused persons and the number of disgusted persons. The number of disgusted persons is unique and therefore merits the definite article. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... > from annily: >>> Peter Morris asks about: >>>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted. >>>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number ARE disgusted. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I think "the" better than "a". Only two numbers are involved, the > number of amused persons and the number of disgusted persons. Why do you make that assumption? Context would determine what is involved. > The number of disgusted persons is unique and therefore merits the > definite article. Another unwarranted assumption. Yes, there is a difference in meaning between "the number of" and "a number of", but we have no way of knowing which was meant. SignatureSkitt (AmE) is not very assuming today. Re-- A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted. - A few people are amused, but the larger number ARE disgusted. > I think "the" better than "a". Only two numbers are involved, the > number of amused persons and the number of disgusted persons. The number > of disgusted persons is unique and therefore merits the definite > article. No. It is the statement "the larger number" that tells us that "disgusted" is the status of the largest number of persons falling into any category, not vice-versa. The hypothesis someone else advanced of 5% amused, 85% indifferent and 10% disgusted cannot be correct, else it would be impossible for "the larger number" to be an apt description of those who are disgusted--"there, "*a* larger number" would be needed. Technically, it ought to be "the largest number", but using the comparative for the absolute is an old and accepted form in English. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > Re-- > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Technically, it ought to be "the largest number", I'm not so sure about that anyway. Using "the larger number", rather than "a larger number" suggests that there are only two categories. Hence, "larger" makes more sense than "largest", since I was always taught to use the comparative if there are only two entities. SignatureLong-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions. [...] > I'm not so sure about that anyway. Using "the larger number", rather > than "a larger number" suggests that there are only two categories. > Hence, "larger" makes more sense than "largest", since I was always > taught to use the comparative if there are only two entities. Possibly I didn't explain myself well. What I said was: The hypothesis someone else advanced of 5% amused, 85% indifferent and 10% disgusted cannot be correct . . . . It cannot be correct because "the larger number" was used, which--as you say--implies only two divisions being compared ("the larger number" and, by implication, "the smaller number"). Had it read "a larger number", it might refer to one of several categories each of which is larger than the smallest. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > might refer to one of several categories each of which is larger than the > smallest. Actually, for the record, I think the speculation is more or less correct. There are some people who are amused, some who are disgusted, but probably most people take no notice at all. >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > There are some people who are amused, some who are disgusted, but > probably most people take no notice at all. That would almost certainly be true in practice, in which case the original statement was not correctly worded. SignatureLong-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > might refer to one of several categories each of which is larger than the > smallest. Fair enough. We are in agreement. SignatureLong-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions. > Peter Morris asks about: > > - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted. > > - A few people are amused, but the larger number ARE disgusted. > > "Are" is correct. I disagree. "The larger number" is a singular form (even if it a collective as an idiom). For example: One says "The city council is ...." That is also a singular form describing a collective, yet when they act as one, they are one. "The" - a definite article implying one in number. Now, had the sentence been: "A few people are amused, but a larger number are disgusted." Here, the indefinite article doesn't tie the subject to a collective acting as one but leaves open the count. The reference becomes a plural collective. Peter Morris asks about: > > > - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted. > > > - A few people are amused, but the larger number ARE disgusted. Mark Brader: > > "Are" is correct. D. Stussy: > I disagree. You are not correct. > "The larger number" is a singular form... That is irrelevant. The sentence is about the people. > For example: One says "The city council is ...." That is also a singular > form describing a collective, yet when they act as one, they are one. The people being amused or disgusted are not acting as one. > "The" - a definite article implying one in number. Irrelevant. The sentence is about the people. > Now, had the sentence been: > > "A few people are amused, but a larger number are disgusted." > > Here, the indefinite article... Also implies a singular, and is equally irrelevant. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "Don't let it drive you crazy... msb@vex.net | Leave the driving to us!" --Wayne & Shuster My text in this article is in the public domain. >> Peter Morris asks about: >>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted. - [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > "The" - a definite article implying one in number. "The" serves for both singular and plural. A sentence like "I've sold the sheep" doesn't imply that I sold just one sheep. SignatureJames On 17 Jan 2010, D. Stussy wrote >> Peter Morris asks about: >>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > For example: One says "The city council is ...." Depends where you are, and what follows. In BrE, "The city council are..." is entirely possible. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >> Peter Morris asks about: >>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I disagree. "The larger number" is a singular form (even if it a > collective as an idiom). Have you ever met a disgusted number? SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>> Peter Morris asks about: >>>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Have you ever met a disgusted number? Probably not. Disgusting numbers, perhaps. But that doesn't help in the decision between "is" and "are". I suppose it indicates that re-wording would be a better choice. SignatureLong-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions. > Which is the correct usage: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I can see it either way. Number is a singular noun, so IS, but it refers > to multiple people so ARE. I'm not sure here. "Number" used to indicate multiplicity is a dangerous form, exactly because it invariably produces such splits in readers. Even if the reader ultimately agrees with whichever form the writer has chosen, that brief "can that be right?" pause interrupts the smooth flow of ideas that is every writer's goal. Now I doubt that many people would write-- The number of men wearing hats this season are large. --so "the number" seems, as logic and grammar suggest, singular. But in uses like that prompting this thread, it's not at all clear what people would or wouldn't find "normal"--which split is exactly why not to use the term. Ditto, incidentally: The number this year are even larger than last year's. (But some writers get around this by reference to "the numbers" in castings like that one.) Even worse is the form "a number", as in: A number of men is/are wearing hats this season. "A number" plainly wants "is", but it sounds freakish if used. In short, it's a "skunked term", and to be avoided at all costs. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >> Which is the correct usage: >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > In short, it's a "skunked term", and to be avoided at all costs. It depends who's performing the action (or existing in the state). It was the number that was large, but the men that were wearing hats. [...] >> Even worse is the form "a number", as in: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It depends who's performing the action (or existing in the state). It > was the number that was large, but the men that were wearing hats. Rather, it depends on how one parses the thing: is "of men" an adjectival prepositional phrase modifying "number", or is "a number of" an adjectical phrase modifying "men"? If "a number of" is replaced by the vastly preferable "numerous", the issue vanishes. But as it is, much confusion remains. As to "a number" of: AskOxford says it is a "determinder", so use "are"; The Grammar Logs is puzzled and relies on "ear"; Everything Language simply declares by _fiat_ that "a number of" is equivalent to "they"; Garner declares that the plurality is justified by synesis, which at least has the virtue of sounding magesterial, but when looked up (in Garner's book) turns out only to mean antigrammatical but idiomatic, which seems tautological for idiom. And so it goes, while poor little wallflower "numerous" waits to be asked to dance. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > And so it goes, while poor little wallflower "numerous" waits to be > asked to dance. It may have changed its name from "legion", but there is still that whiff about it. I agree, I think, about the parsing. I was merely pointing out that the meaning of the words often indicates, as it did in those examples, what the parsing must be. >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > It may have changed its name from "legion", but there is still that > whiff about it. Did anyone ever ask a legion to dance? SignatureJames . >>> And so it goes, while poor little wallflower "numerous" waits to be >>> asked to dance. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Did anyone ever ask a legion to dance? A legion of lobsters, perhap? SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >A legion of lobsters, perhap? OK fellow lobsters. Let's form four lines and dance down these shallow trenches. We can call the dance a quadrille. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >OK fellow lobsters. Let's form four lines and dance down these shallow >trenches. We can call the dance a quadrille. Who's this we? Do you have a caucus? SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >>> . >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Who's this we? Do you have a caucus? Not sure. Can you have ta many for a caucus? SignatureMike. >>>> . >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Not sure. Can you have ta many for a caucus? I'd ask my hedgehog, but he just crawled away. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England > . >>>> And so it goes, while poor little wallflower "numerous" waits to be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > A legion of lobsters, perhap? Great, now I have Stuck Doggerel Syndrome. I suppose it is doggerel? The OED definition seems to emphasise the characteristic of irregular rhythm. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > Did anyone ever ask a legion to dance? Yes, and they were sent three and fourpence. Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:15:42 +0100 from James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com>: > >> And so it goes, while poor little wallflower "numerous" waits to be > >> asked to dance. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Did anyone ever ask a legion to dance? "Bella figlia dell'amore ..." SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... > Did anyone ever ask a legion to dance? In my recollection, it was "the eighth army" rather than "a legion." Wasn't usually dancing, either. --Jeff SignatureIs man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's? --Friedrich Nietzsche Sun, 17 Jan 2010 03:01:59 GMT from Peter Morris <no_spam@peter.co.uk>: > Which is the correct usage: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I can see it either way. Number is a singular noun, so IS, but it refers > to multiple people so ARE. I'm not sure here. I don't believe "is" is possible, because a number, being an abstract concept, cannot feel disgust; only people can. The usual solution to this sort of conundrum is that "number" is short for "number of people", which in turn is a sort of multi-word subject rather than the prepositional phrase that it looks like. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... > Which is the correct usage: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I can see it either way. Number is a singular noun, so IS, but it refers > to multiple people so ARE. I'm not sure here. You could think of it this way. Numbers are singular nouns only when we are talking about the numbers themselves: Four is a small number. 65 is the minimum age for a pension. Usually numbers and numerical phrases -- quantifiers -- are describing amounts of something else. When they count something discrete like people or tickets, they need a plural verb. A dozen were returned. A great many are still there. A third disapprove. A large number are disgusted. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux [...] > Usually numbers and numerical phrases -- quantifiers -- are describing > amounts of something else. When they count something discrete like [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > A third disapprove. > A large number are disgusted. That's a nice set of examples of common usage, but nothing in it has explanatory power concerning why a clearly singular subject takes a plural verb. How can anything with an indefinite article applied be a plural thing? SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > plural verb. How can anything with an indefinite article applied be a > plural thing? A pair. >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> > A pair. A few exceptions, a good fifty thousand, an estimated three million. SignatureJames >>> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > A few exceptions, a good fifty thousand, an estimated three million. Words like "couple" and "pair" are themselves singular because they are describing a unitary concept: a pair or a couple is a definite set of two, not something that may have any number of individual members. Likewise, many numerical quantities are treated as mass nouns, and hence singular, because they are thought of as unitary: "five gallons of milk" is not a set containing five individual gallon amounts, but rather a single bucketful of milk. But is is dubious, I reckon, to consider that "a number" is a unitary, mass quantity comparable to "five gallons". Moreover, the very fact that this sort of discussion can be had suggests that the form is a poor choice. For a usage to be felicitous, its being correct is a necessary but hardly a sufficient condition: it must be correct, but it must also flow smoothly, without conscious notice on the part of the reader or listener. When a usage prompts a flash of questioning, however brief, it has interrupted the flow of concepts, and thus in some part failed of its mission. Perhaps at some day in the middle future, "a number of" will have evolved to the status of "a lot of", but to my reckoning it has not yet quite reached that stage, and, if nothing better rises in one's mind, "numerous" (or even simple "many") will suffice as a much superior alternative. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >>>> [...] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > mind, "numerous" (or even simple "many") will suffice as a much > superior alternative. I was merely providing some more answers to your question "How can anything with an indefinite article applied be a plural thing?" "A great many examples are cited" is clearly plural yet has an indefinite article. SignatureJames >>> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > A few exceptions, a good fifty thousand, an estimated three million. The traditionalist view has been that anything that is grammatically singular must take a singular verb. That's what I would call the syntax-dominated approach. If we look at modern usage, though, syntax has been thrown out the door and the decision is dominated by semantics: "an estimated three million" might be grammatically singular, but in terms of meaning it refers to a plural entity, so we treat it as plural. This, I submit, is part of the recognition that English is not Latin. We've given lip service to that truism for a long time, but there are still some people who use the syntax of a sentence, as distinct from its semantics, to make the singular/plural decision. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>>> [...] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > are still some people who use the syntax of a sentence, as distinct > from its semantics, to make the singular/plural decision. There's a pondial difference here, isn't there? American English has a greater tendency to use the singular in cases where it sounds just plain wrong in Britain or Australia. SignatureJames >>>>> [...] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >greater tendency to use the singular in cases where it sounds just plain >wrong in Britain or Australia. There are some cases in Britain where it is necessary to compromise. In the TV competition Strictly Come Dancing (known elsewhere as Dancing with the Stars) at the end of each week's show the names of the couples who have been voted through to the next round are announced. There are two announcers who take it in turns thusly: .... The next couple to go through to next week "is" A & B. The next couple to go through to next week "are" C & D. The next couple to go through to next week "is" E & F. The next couple to go through to next week "are" G & H. .... IIRC "is" is used by Bruce Forsyth (age 81) and "are" by Tess Daly (age 38). SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:29:23 +0000 from Peter Duncanson (BrE) <mail@peterduncanson.net>: > There are some cases in Britain where it is necessary to compromise. In > the TV competition Strictly Come Dancing (known elsewhere as Dancing > with the Stars) Could someone interpret that for me in non-idiomatic English? To my ears the only meaning is, frankly, not suitable for a family newsgroup like this one. (I suppose that puts me in the position of the old lady who complained to the police that the boys walking past her house were whistling dirty songs.) SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... On 19 Jan 2010, Stan Brown wrote > Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:29:23 +0000 from Peter Duncanson (BrE) ><mail@peterduncanson.net>: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > To my ears the only meaning is, frankly, not suitable for a > family newsgroup like this one. Dancing with the Stars (US) and Strictly Come Dancing (UK) are television ballroom-dancing competitions where celebrities are paired with professional ballroom dancers. "Strictly Come Dancing" is a portmanteau name, combining the title of a long-standing British ballroom-dancing television show ("Come Dancing") and the title of a popular movie ("Strictly Ballroom"). SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:29:23 +0000 from Peter Duncanson (BrE) ><mail@peterduncanson.net>: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >the old lady who complained to the police that the boys walking past >her house were whistling dirty songs.) I'm not sure what you have in mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strictly_Come_Dancing Strictly Come Dancing is a British television show, featuring celebrities with professional dance partners competing in Ballroom and Latin dances. It is family entertainment. It attracts viewers of all ages and is aired early evening on Saturdays. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:29:23 +0000 from Peter Duncanson (BrE) >> <mail@peterduncanson.net>: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I'm not sure what you have in mind. I suspect he's thinking of the riddle: What's white and sticky and goes glides across the floor? SignatureJames >>> Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:29:23 +0000 from Peter Duncanson (BrE) >>> <mail@peterduncanson.net>: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > What's white and sticky and goes glides across the floor? I'm rather glad that you saved me from the responsibility of posting that and lowering the tone. (We'll all ignore the superfluous word.) SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>>> Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:29:23 +0000 from Peter Duncanson (BrE) >>>> <mail@peterduncanson.net>: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I'm rather glad that you saved me from the responsibility of posting > that and lowering the tone. (We'll all ignore the superfluous word.) It's better to let me whistle the dirty songs. You stick to your unicycling. SignatureJames >>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:29:23 +0000 from Peter Duncanson (BrE) >><mail@peterduncanson.net>: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > It is family entertainment. It attracts viewers of all ages and is aired > early evening on Saturdays. Conjures up images and sounds of Victor Sylvester >>>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:29:23 +0000 from Peter Duncanson (BrE) >>><mail@peterduncanson.net>: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Conjures up images and sounds of Victor Sylvester Indeed. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:29:23 +0000 from Peter Duncanson (BrE) ><mail@peterduncanson.net>: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >the old lady who complained to the police that the boys walking past >her house were whistling dirty songs.) You think it means dirty dancing, like that film the fellow who died recently was in? 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 >> Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:29:23 +0000 from Peter Duncanson (BrE) >> <mail@peterduncanson.net>: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You think it means dirty dancing, like that film the fellow who > died recently was in? I think it means, "Bring your dancing skills; don't expect to win on personality or beauty of form". SignatureFrank ess >>>>> [...] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > greater tendency to use the singular in cases where it sounds just plain > wrong in Britain or Australia. Correct, or in Australian - krect. > > Usually numbers and numerical phrases -- quantifiers -- are describing > > amounts of something else. When they count something discrete like [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > plural verb. How can anything with an indefinite article applied be a > plural thing? I don't what sort of explanation *you* hope for, but I suspect what I said may satisfy the original poster. I'll try a bit more, and beyond this you'll have to consult experts who have written about this. Quantifiers have a different logic and grammar than other words. They may look something like "clearly singular subjects" and the rest, but they aren't. Their role is to give the quantity of another noun, which may be understood instead of stated. A box of scarves is on the shelf. (Box = singular subject) A lot of scarves are on the shelf. (A lot of = quantifying phrase describing amount of scarves. It only rarely means the singular "lot" of commercial transaction: "A lot of scarves is ready to be shipped.") A couple is standing on the dance floor. (A couple = treated as a collective noun, i.e. singular. A group is, a committee is, a team is -- in US English) Where are all the spoons? Oh, a couple are in the dishrack, and a couple are on the counter. (A couple = quantifying phrase meaning two or a few) For the purposes of complete explanation, it doesn't really help to say that "a couple" stands for "a couple of spoons" because that just moves us to another form of the same question, "Well, why should 'a couple of spoons' take a plural verb, either?" The answer would have to be "because it represents more than one spoon," I suppose. SignatureBest - Donna Richoux |
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.