 |
 | 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 / June 2010If there is/are more than one...
Which is correct and why? 1. If there is more than one correct answer, 2. If there are more than one correct answer, #1 sounds right to me, but the "more than one" seems logically plural. > Which is correct and why? > > 1. If there is more than one correct answer, > 2. If there are more than one correct answer, > > #1 sounds right to me, but the "more than one" seems logically plural. You are quite right in your analysis: No. 2 is indeed more logical, but No. 1 is what nearly all native speakers would find more natural.  Signatureathel >> Which is correct and why? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >You are quite right in your analysis: No. 2 is indeed more logical, but >No. 1 is what nearly all native speakers would find more natural. So is #1 linguistically correct, but unused, and #2 linguistically incorrect, but in such widespread use that it is now "acceptable" or even preferred? Are you a linguist? What do the linguists say? On 28 Jun 2010, Catch 23 wrote >>> Which is correct and why? >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > incorrect, but in such widespread use that it is now "acceptable" or > even preferred? Are those typos? He said the opposite: "No. 1 is what nearly all native speakers would find more natural". > Are you a linguist? What do the linguists say? Although some linguists post here, at base this is not a linguistics group -- it's a usage discussion group. If you're seeking the views of linguists, you really need to be asking the question in a different group. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 28 Jun 2010, Catch 23 wrote > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Are those typos? He said the opposite: "No. 1 is what nearly all native >speakers would find more natural". Yes, fat fingers. I meant the reverse. >> Are you a linguist? What do the linguists say? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >If you're seeking the views of linguists, you really need to be asking the >question in a different group. What group would that be? > >If you're seeking the views of linguists, you really need to be asking the > >question in a different group. > > What group would that be? WHATEVER YOU DO DON'T CROSSPOST TO IT FROM AUE. SignatureJohn Varela >>> If you're seeking the views of linguists, you really need to be asking the >>> question in a different group. >> What group would that be? > > WHATEVER YOU DO DON'T CROSSPOST TO IT FROM AUE. ROFLMAO. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> >If you're seeking the views of linguists, you really need to be asking the >> >question in a different group. >> >> What group would that be? > >WHATEVER YOU DO DON'T CROSSPOST TO IT FROM AUE. There must be some subtle insider joke here that I don't get. >>>> If you're seeking the views of linguists, you really need to be asking the >>>> question in a different group. >>> What group would that be? >> WHATEVER YOU DO DON'T CROSSPOST TO IT FROM AUE. > > There must be some subtle insider joke here that I don't get. The linguists' group is sci.lang. It's OK to post your question. The thing that's not OK, and that would upset a lot of people, would be a crosspost that included both sci.lang and alt.usage.english. Such crossposts lead, in our experience, to long-running battles that the majority of us find boring and annoying. If you do post to sci.lang, don't be surprised if one person responds by attacking or insulting you. Ignore him, and listen to the others. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>>>> If you're seeking the views of linguists, you really need to be asking the >>>>> question in a different group. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >crossposts lead, in our experience, to long-running battles that the >majority of us find boring and annoying. Oh, OK. I hadn't noticed that being a problem here. >If you do post to sci.lang, don't be surprised if one person responds by >attacking or insulting you. Ignore him, and listen to the others. That's pretty much all of usenet, no? >>>>>> If you're seeking the views of linguists, you really need to be asking the >>>>>> question in a different group. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Oh, OK. I hadn't noticed that being a problem here. It's more of a problem in the other direction. On the whole we're quite tolerant at AUE, but that's not the case with everyone at sci.lang, and they also have a higher proportion of single-minded obsessives than we have here. The person that Peter has in mind (below) is actually a world-expert in his subject area, and is well informed about linguistics in general, so it's best to ignore his rudeness, but not his knowledge. >> If you do post to sci.lang, don't be surprised if one person responds by >> attacking or insulting you. Ignore him, and listen to the others. > > That's pretty much all of usenet, no? Not really. Some groups are much ruder than others. Signatureathel >>> If you do post to sci.lang, don't be surprised if one person responds by >>> attacking or insulting you. Ignore him, and listen to the others. >> >> That's pretty much all of usenet, no? > >Not really. Some groups are much ruder than others. alt.os.linux.ubuntu takes the biscuit for sheer nastiness. This one (aue) is probably the politest. > in 890352 20100629 152804 Athel Cornish-Bowden > <acornish@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > alt.os.linux.ubuntu takes the biscuit for sheer nastiness. > This one (aue) is probably the politest. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks that! Signatureathel >> in 890352 20100629 152804 Athel Cornish-Bowden >> <acornish@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks that! AUE is pretty much on a level with UMRA in terms of politeness. UMRA gets next to no drop-ins, which helps a lot. SignatureDavid the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com>: >>> in 890352 20100629 152804 Athel Cornish-Bowden >>> <acornish@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >AUE is pretty much on a level with UMRA in terms of politeness. UMRA >gets next to no drop-ins, which helps a lot. My vote goes to uk.d-i-y, a group about as busy as a.u.e, where discourtesy is almost unknown. But uk.rec.driving, on the other hand,... SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >> Catch 23 said: >>> Which is correct and why? >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Are you a linguist? What do the linguists say? According to the American Heritage Dictionary of English Usage: When you are skinning a cat. When a noun phrase contains more than one and a singular noun, the verb is normally singular: There is more than one way to skin a cat. More than one editor is working on that project. More than one field has been planted with oats. When more than one is followed by of and a plural noun, the verb is plural: More than one of the paintings were stolen. More than one of the cottages are for sale. When more than one stands alone, it usually takes a singular verb, but it may take a plural verb if the notion of multiplicity predominates: The operating rooms are all in good order. More than one is (or are) equipped with the latest imaging technology. SignatureSkitt (SF Bay Area) http://come.to/skitt >>> Catch 23 said: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >order. More than one is (or are) equipped with the latest imaging >technology. Thanks for that. I have used the AH dictionary forever, but was not aware of the Dictionary of English Usage. I could not find anything by that exact name. It is the same this? http://tinyurl.com/2evjbwv or this? http://tinyurl.com/2bvx5m5 Thanks >>>> Catch 23 said: >>>>> Which is correct and why? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > http://tinyurl.com/2bvx5m5 I think it is neither. I don't own a copy of it, but it used to be accessible on the Web. What I quoted above was written by someone else in a different forum. The title that was quoted was apparently not entirely correct. The one available on the Web was The American Heritage Book of English Usage. It is now available from Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/American-Heritage-Book-English-Usage/dp/0395767857 SignatureSkitt (SF Bay Area) http://come.to/skitt >>>>> Catch 23 said: > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >English Usage. It is now available from Amazon: >http://www.amazon.com/American-Heritage-Book-English-Usage/dp/0395767857 ??? How is that different than the second link above? >>>>>> Catch 23 said: >>>>>>> Which is correct and why? >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > ??? How is that different than the second link above? No difference. Sorry. I was multitasking and not paying attention. SignatureSkitt Ever ready to retract the aforesaid and aver the opposite. >> Which is correct and why? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You are quite right in your analysis: No. 2 is indeed more logical, but > No. 1 is what nearly all native speakers would find more natural. I came across an even stranger example of agreement paradox yesterday: "We will fight until the last sword and pitchfork are broken". I believe any native English speaker would change that "are" to "is", but when you think about it, it's hard to explain why. SignatureRob Bannister >I came across an even stranger example of agreement paradox yesterday: >"We will fight until the last sword and pitchfork are broken". I believe >any native English speaker would change that "are" to "is", but when you >think about it, it's hard to explain why. I find the sentence entirely plausible as written. The discomfort (which I do observe) comes from the binding of "the last"; with a noncompound plural complement, "the last" normally has plural agreement, but with the compound complement there's a slight ambiguity over the scope of "the last" (even though the alternative parse doesn't make any sense). It's another example of the old agree-with-nearest versus agree-with-formal-subject dichotomy. By changing it to "is", you're making the verb in the clause agree with the nearest previous NP, "pitchfork", whereas "are" is correct for the entire subject of the clause, "the last sword and pitchfork". Of course, if you change the subject to "every last sword and pitchfork" then singular agreement is required. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 |
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.