This is incorrect because you cannot replace "two thousand miles" with "it." The reason it sounds correct to you is that the implication is that the subject is "the distance of two thousand miles," which would be singular ("distance").
I humbly disagree. The fact the distance is implied, does, indeed, make it singular. It is a unified length: one distance; one thing.
Consider:
Five miles is (not are) the distance I walked today.
400 meters is (not are) the length of the swimming race.
5,280 feet (not are) is a mile.
Quote:
The old man the ships.
Fat people eat accumulates.
The horse raced past the barn fell.
The girl told the story cried.
The man who hunts ducks out on weekends.
1 and 2 are grammatical. 3 is a run-on sentence. 4 is grammatical but poor style. 5 is grammatical but poor style (and ducks-out should be hyphenated).
You done good though. Much better than scottiB. I was just happy that you missed one little detail, because otherwise I would have felt my little quiz was too easy.
Numerical expressions are usually singular, but can be plural if the individuals within a numerical group are acting individually:
Fifty thousand dollars is a lot of money.
One-half of the faculty is retiring this summer.
One-half of the faculty have doctorates.
Fifty percent of the students have voted already.
I'm not sure I get the difference between #2 and #3. Why is "One-half of the faculty is retiring this summer" OK, but "One-half of the faculty have doctorates" OK too?
Unless the beer I just had is going to my head...aren't these all examples of an inverted subject and object?
Quote:
Originally posted by scottiB
Consider:
Five miles is (not are) the distance I walked today.
400 meters is (not are) the length of the swimming race.
5,280 feet (not are) is a mile.
Shouldn't these sentences be written "The distance I walked today was five miles," "The length of the swimming race is 400 metes," and "A mile is (equal to) 5280 feet"?
Unless the beer I just had is going to my head...aren't these all examples of an inverted subject and object?
Five miles is (not are) the distance I walked today.
Shouldn't these sentences be written "The distance I walked today was five miles," "The length of the swimming race is 400 metes," and "A mile is (equal to) 5280 feet"?
OK, my classical grammar from school says to me:
(1) "is" is a copulative verb: it joins/associates two subjects, rather than subordinating one to the other: therefore both the nouns are in fact subjects, and the order they are in doesn't matter, except for its person/number. I'm also pretty sure that this rule is moribund in modern English, so one can probably take one's pick. I'm inclined to think the present tense is OK too, because it strikes me as describing a currently valid set of circumstances. The past would look a bit more natural though.
(2) "I walked today" is a subordinate clause (adjectival clause), describing "the distance", and thus outside the structure of the main part of the sentence, with "I" as the subject, and walked being intransitive (not requiring an object). It should, however, follow the word it's describing immediately in English grammar.
Did I mention that I think English grammar is a crock? Seriously, our syntax is based on word order more than anything. Inflection is about as useful to us as our appendix, or facial hair.
Carol: there's a difference between American and British/Commonwealth punctuation?
crazychester: please don't go! \ On, and re. the patronising thing, it's just that I constantly get accused by my nearest and dearest of being a pompous bastard... it's a bit depressing, really.
I'm not sure I get the difference between #2 and #3. Why is "One-half of the faculty is retiring this summer" OK, but "One-half of the faculty have doctorates" OK too?
In #2, it essentially is one unit (again "one thing" that I used to tell my students) that is doing something together (at the end of the summer--whether they've planned to act together is immaterial; the result is that half is leaving at a specific time). The faculty, one thing, is losing half, another thing (sorry, I've had a beer or two, too--holiday weekend and all). A grapefruit has many sections. If I were to cleave it in half, the half that is removed had many sections, yet it is one thing.
In #3, the faculty earning doctorates have done so individually; they are not acting together to achieve that goal (as a team-or one unit). Since the achievements are individual, they can be regarded as plural.
Unless the beer I just had is going to my head...aren't these all examples of an inverted subject and object?
Shouldn't these sentences be written "The distance I walked today was five miles," "The length of the swimming race is 400 metes," and "A mile is (equal to) 5280 feet"?
Yes, it should've been past tense. Invariably, when I write about grammar, I make a simple mistake (which is why I don't do it often--write about it, that is ). Was, however, is singular, so, written correctly: Five miles was the distance I walked..
To follow-up on staphbaby's post, my examples lacked objects in the grammatical sense because "is" is a linking verb (as taught in the U.S., but "copulative verb" has such a fantastic connotation). While the order that I wrote them can be considered non-standard, I wrote them that way to illustrate my point. "Meters" and "length" represent the same thing (which I can't recall if that makes them appositives or, in my example, "length" is just the predicate noun), but, while one is plural, it is considered singular to agree with the verb--and since it agrees as a subject (in number with a linking verb) it must agree if it's the predicate noun (or appositive).
But this is the reflexive form of "to be", and the verb takes its number from the object.
I was taken aback by your post (it's been awhile since I taught grammar, and I'm a bit--or a lot--rusty on the peripheral instances), but as far as I can ascertain from my grammar books and the web, in English, reflexivity is only considered with pronouns.
I, myself, have built the model. Or She denied herself the opium.
There are, though, plenty of reflexive verbs in other languages (as I Google-searched the term).
"To be" (am, is, are, were, etc.) is not a transitive verb, so it has no object (direct object, indirect object, or object of the preposition--the only objects in the English language, IIRC), and, like all verbs in the English language, it must agree with its subject--not any object.
Now, after six beers and all my writing, I bet that I'm wrong.
staphbaby I'm not going anywhere. I'm just not posting (well OK, I am posting but you know what I mean). I got a bad taste in my mouth from yesterday's instalment of "Who's community is it anyway?" so I'm taking a break.
Besides where would I go? Over there?
And I'm sure resisting the urge to comment on the Dave Crosby article will be character building in the long run.
Now somebody remind me not to post so I know the system's up and running.
PS Finally, decided on a sig though. I thought it'd be a fittingly obtuse hint for the unwary.
Did I mention that I think English grammar is a crock?
Quote:
Carol: there's a difference between American and British/Commonwealth punctuation?
American - His name is "Paul."
British - His name is "Paul".
What I've noticed wrt my British friends is that they are knowledgeable and consistent when it comes to the use of quotation marks.
They are remarkably *clueless* when it comes to the accurate use of commas. They seem to throw in commas whenever they don't quite know what to use. The comma is their 'default' punctuation mark, used instead of periods and semicolons. heh.
Semicolons are almost unheard of - as if they were some exotic, foreign, and not entirely trusted device.
The British comma/semicolon problem does not apply to Segovius, however. He is one of the brightest people I have ever known, and can write stunningly well when he feels like it. (He is also incredibly elusive. ) I am in awe of Segovius. The myterious Pisces.
Oh shit the sig didn't work. Bad luck. You'll just have to wait.
Edit: Ah there 'tis.
That sig imbues me with an overwhelming desire to cross my legs.
ScottiB: "is" is intransitive, and thus has no direct object, but at least in my understanding, it can associate multiple subjects: "I am the village whipping-boy" is one example ? it can be written the other way around without affecting meaning or syntax. It can obviously be used reflexively, like any verb really, but it isn't a reflexive verb in the normal sense. The only examples of truly reflexive verbs I can think of are French and Latin, and I'll spare everyone that pain.
Off topic: I'm constantly disappointed that my Latin tutees get to the final years of a private grammar-school education without being taught basic things like the in/transitive distinction. Some of them don't even really understand the parts of speech (noun, verb, etc.) How can you study a foreign language (let alone a heavily inflected one like Latin) for four or more years without understanding this? Grump grump grump.
What I've noticed wrt my British friends is that they are knowledgeable and consistent when it comes to the use of quotation marks.
I always understood the rule as being that punctuation which was actually in the quote in the original source stayed within the quotation marks, whereas if it wasn't in the quotation, it stayed outside the quotation marks?
Actually, the funniest part of in-quotation punctuation I've ever seen is from Australian lawyers, who regularly come up with things like this:
"Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson and Gaudron JJ ? [T]he basis for holding that the Board came under a duty of care may be simply stated?"
see the retentive changing of the quote to make it strictly correct despite the ellipsis?
Quote:
They are remarkably *clueless* when it comes to the accurate use of commas. They seem to throw in commas whenever they don't quite know what to use. The comma is their 'default' punctuation mark, used instead of periods and semicolons. heh.
Semicolons are almost unheard of - as if they were some exotic, foreign, and not entirely trusted device.
I love semi-colons. They make me feel old-fashioned though.
I always understood the rule as being that punctuation which was actually in the quote in the original source stayed within the quotation marks, whereas if it wasn't in the quotation, it stayed outside the quotation marks?
Yeah. That's the British rule.
I guess Americans think the end mark looks silly hanging out there by itself: His name is "Paul".
A 'period' floating in mid-air, all lonely and alienated, so to speak.
What *REALLY* is annoying, Stephen, is what our (American) dictionaries do these days. They list the actual spelling of a word first; and then they include what 'used' to be the 'incorrect' spelling of the word - essentially saying, "Oh, what the hell. That version works for us." I find this situation constantly, and it makes me want to jump up and down in fury!!!
Examples: benefitting, also benefiting; mosquitoes, also mosquitos
The result is that no matter which spelling one uses, 'someone' will think it is incorrect. Geez!!!
Now that it's summer and I have some time, maybe I'll investigate the 'reasons' for some of these mysteries. heh. Surely there *must* be 'reasons'? Yes? No?
I *do* like the fact that we Americans tossed out (what to us are) useless affectations, such as doubling the "l's" in words like "travelling"; or including the "u's" in words like "colour" and "behaviour".
Okay. Now that I have you here, I have a bone to pick wrt collective nouns and singular/plural verbs.
The British say:
"The team HAVE arrived."
"The teams have arrived."
This *REALLY* bothers me!!!!
Americans say:
"The team HAS arrived."
"The teams HAVE arrived."
So, whaddaya think? Don't you agree that the American version makes more sense?
Edit: Oh, and speaking of 'old-fashioned', I smile every time my British friends say "whilst". I think it's sweet...and quaint.
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
OK midwinter and Carol, here's some for ya. Grammatical, or ungrammatical?
The old man the ships.
Fat people eat accumulates.
The horse raced past the barn fell.
The girl told the story cried.
The man who hunts ducks out on weekends.
ooh, ooh, me, me!
#1 as in "The elderly serve as crew"
#2 as in "Lard people consume adds up"
#3 as in "The horse driven competitively past the barn stumbled"
#4 as in "The girl who heard the tale got sad"
#5 as in "The guy who shoots birds slips away on Saturday"
What do I win?
Originally posted by addabox
ooh, ooh, me, me!
#1 as in "The elderly serve as crew"
#2 as in "Lard people consume adds up"
#3 as in "The horse driven competitively past the barn stumbled"
#4 as in "The girl who heard the tale got sad"
#5 as in "The guy who shoots birds slips away on Saturday"
What do I win?
You win 4 cookies, because for #5, you don't know what the guy is hunting.
Originally posted by midwinter
This is incorrect because you cannot replace "two thousand miles" with "it." The reason it sounds correct to you is that the implication is that the subject is "the distance of two thousand miles," which would be singular ("distance").
I humbly disagree. The fact the distance is implied, does, indeed, make it singular. It is a unified length: one distance; one thing.
Consider:
Five miles is (not are) the distance I walked today.
400 meters is (not are) the length of the swimming race.
5,280 feet (not are) is a mile.
The old man the ships.
Fat people eat accumulates.
The horse raced past the barn fell.
The girl told the story cried.
The man who hunts ducks out on weekends.
1 and 2 are grammatical. 3 is a run-on sentence. 4 is grammatical but poor style. 5 is grammatical but poor style (and ducks-out should be hyphenated).
Originally posted by BRussell
You win 4 cookies, because for #5, you don't know what the guy is hunting.
Doh!
Originally posted by addabox
Doh!
You done good though. Much better than scottiB.
Anyway, according to this Webster's site:
Numerical expressions are usually singular, but can be plural if the individuals within a numerical group are acting individually:
Fifty thousand dollars is a lot of money.
One-half of the faculty is retiring this summer.
One-half of the faculty have doctorates.
Fifty percent of the students have voted already.
I'm not sure I get the difference between #2 and #3. Why is "One-half of the faculty is retiring this summer" OK, but "One-half of the faculty have doctorates" OK too?
Originally posted by scottiB
Consider:
Five miles is (not are) the distance I walked today.
400 meters is (not are) the length of the swimming race.
5,280 feet (not are) is a mile.
Shouldn't these sentences be written "The distance I walked today was five miles," "The length of the swimming race is 400 metes," and "A mile is (equal to) 5280 feet"?
Two Thousand Miles seperate my love and I?
But I don think it'd be the first one.
Originally posted by midwinter
Unless the beer I just had is going to my head...aren't these all examples of an inverted subject and object?
Five miles is (not are) the distance I walked today.
Shouldn't these sentences be written "The distance I walked today was five miles," "The length of the swimming race is 400 metes," and "A mile is (equal to) 5280 feet"?
OK, my classical grammar from school says to me:
(1) "is" is a copulative verb: it joins/associates two subjects, rather than subordinating one to the other: therefore both the nouns are in fact subjects, and the order they are in doesn't matter, except for its person/number. I'm also pretty sure that this rule is moribund in modern English, so one can probably take one's pick. I'm inclined to think the present tense is OK too, because it strikes me as describing a currently valid set of circumstances. The past would look a bit more natural though.
(2) "I walked today" is a subordinate clause (adjectival clause), describing "the distance", and thus outside the structure of the main part of the sentence, with "I" as the subject, and walked being intransitive (not requiring an object). It should, however, follow the word it's describing immediately in English grammar.
Did I mention that I think English grammar is a crock? Seriously, our syntax is based on word order more than anything. Inflection is about as useful to us as our appendix, or facial hair.
Carol: there's a difference between American and British/Commonwealth punctuation?
crazychester: please don't go!
Originally posted by BRussell
I'm not sure I get the difference between #2 and #3. Why is "One-half of the faculty is retiring this summer" OK, but "One-half of the faculty have doctorates" OK too?
In #2, it essentially is one unit (again "one thing" that I used to tell my students) that is doing something together (at the end of the summer--whether they've planned to act together is immaterial; the result is that half is leaving at a specific time). The faculty, one thing, is losing half, another thing (sorry, I've had a beer or two, too--holiday weekend and all). A grapefruit has many sections. If I were to cleave it in half, the half that is removed had many sections, yet it is one thing.
In #3, the faculty earning doctorates have done so individually; they are not acting together to achieve that goal (as a team-or one unit). Since the achievements are individual, they can be regarded as plural.
Originally posted by tonton
I've never heard that particular adjective. Sounds fun.
Or, it could be used as an expletive adjective:
"Get your copulative rear out that door!"
I think I like it.
Yeah, I always have to stop myself from smirking when tutoring the kiddies.
I don't want to be thought of as a depraved old man after all.
Originally posted by midwinter
Unless the beer I just had is going to my head...aren't these all examples of an inverted subject and object?
Shouldn't these sentences be written "The distance I walked today was five miles," "The length of the swimming race is 400 metes," and "A mile is (equal to) 5280 feet"?
Yes, it should've been past tense. Invariably, when I write about grammar, I make a simple mistake (which is why I don't do it often--write about it, that is
To follow-up on staphbaby's post, my examples lacked objects in the grammatical sense because "is" is a linking verb (as taught in the U.S., but "copulative verb" has such a fantastic connotation). While the order that I wrote them can be considered non-standard, I wrote them that way to illustrate my point. "Meters" and "length" represent the same thing (which I can't recall if that makes them appositives or, in my example, "length" is just the predicate noun), but, while one is plural, it is considered singular to agree with the verb--and since it agrees as a subject (in number with a linking verb) it must agree if it's the predicate noun (or appositive).
Originally posted by tonton
But this is the reflexive form of "to be", and the verb takes its number from the object.
I was taken aback by your post (it's been awhile since I taught grammar, and I'm a bit--or a lot--rusty on the peripheral instances), but as far as I can ascertain from my grammar books and the web, in English, reflexivity is only considered with pronouns.
I, myself, have built the model. Or She denied herself the opium.
There are, though, plenty of reflexive verbs in other languages (as I Google-searched the term).
"To be" (am, is, are, were, etc.) is not a transitive verb, so it has no object (direct object, indirect object, or object of the preposition--the only objects in the English language, IIRC), and, like all verbs in the English language, it must agree with its subject--not any object.
Now, after six beers and all my writing, I bet that I'm wrong.
Besides where would I go? Over there?
And I'm sure resisting the urge to comment on the Dave Crosby article will be character building in the long run.
Now somebody remind me not to post so I know the system's up and running.
PS Finally, decided on a sig though. I thought it'd be a fittingly obtuse hint for the unwary.
Edit: Ah there 'tis.
Originally posted by staphbaby
Did I mention that I think English grammar is a crock?
Carol: there's a difference between American and British/Commonwealth punctuation?
American - His name is "Paul."
British - His name is "Paul".
What I've noticed wrt my British friends is that they are knowledgeable and consistent when it comes to the use of quotation marks.
They are remarkably *clueless* when it comes to the accurate use of commas. They seem to throw in commas whenever they don't quite know what to use. The comma is their 'default' punctuation mark, used instead of periods and semicolons. heh.
Semicolons are almost unheard of - as if they were some exotic, foreign, and not entirely trusted device.
The British comma/semicolon problem does not apply to Segovius, however. He is one of the brightest people I have ever known, and can write stunningly well when he feels like it. (He is also incredibly elusive.
Originally posted by crazychester
Oh shit the sig didn't work. Bad luck. You'll just have to wait.
Edit: Ah there 'tis.
That sig imbues me with an overwhelming desire to cross my legs.
ScottiB: "is" is intransitive, and thus has no direct object, but at least in my understanding, it can associate multiple subjects: "I am the village whipping-boy" is one example ? it can be written the other way around without affecting meaning or syntax. It can obviously be used reflexively, like any verb really, but it isn't a reflexive verb in the normal sense. The only examples of truly reflexive verbs I can think of are French and Latin, and I'll spare everyone that pain.
Off topic: I'm constantly disappointed that my Latin tutees get to the final years of a private grammar-school education without being taught basic things like the in/transitive distinction. Some of them don't even really understand the parts of speech (noun, verb, etc.) How can you study a foreign language (let alone a heavily inflected one like Latin) for four or more years without understanding this? Grump grump grump.
Originally posted by Carol A
[B]
American - His name is "Paul."
British - His name is "Paul".
What I've noticed wrt my British friends is that they are knowledgeable and consistent when it comes to the use of quotation marks.
I always understood the rule as being that punctuation which was actually in the quote in the original source stayed within the quotation marks, whereas if it wasn't in the quotation, it stayed outside the quotation marks?
Actually, the funniest part of in-quotation punctuation I've ever seen is from Australian lawyers, who regularly come up with things like this:
"Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson and Gaudron JJ ? [T]he basis for holding that the Board came under a duty of care may be simply stated?"
see the retentive changing of the quote to make it strictly correct despite the ellipsis?
They are remarkably *clueless* when it comes to the accurate use of commas. They seem to throw in commas whenever they don't quite know what to use. The comma is their 'default' punctuation mark, used instead of periods and semicolons. heh.
Semicolons are almost unheard of - as if they were some exotic, foreign, and not entirely trusted device.
I love semi-colons. They make me feel old-fashioned though.
Originally posted by staphbaby
I always understood the rule as being that punctuation which was actually in the quote in the original source stayed within the quotation marks, whereas if it wasn't in the quotation, it stayed outside the quotation marks?
Yeah. That's the British rule.
I guess Americans think the end mark looks silly hanging out there by itself: His name is "Paul".
A 'period' floating in mid-air, all lonely and alienated, so to speak.
What *REALLY* is annoying, Stephen, is what our (American) dictionaries do these days. They list the actual spelling of a word first; and then they include what 'used' to be the 'incorrect' spelling of the word - essentially saying, "Oh, what the hell. That version works for us." I find this situation constantly, and it makes me want to jump up and down in fury!!!
Examples: benefitting, also benefiting; mosquitoes, also mosquitos
The result is that no matter which spelling one uses, 'someone' will think it is incorrect. Geez!!!
Now that it's summer and I have some time, maybe I'll investigate the 'reasons' for some of these mysteries. heh. Surely there *must* be 'reasons'? Yes? No?
I *do* like the fact that we Americans tossed out (what to us are) useless affectations, such as doubling the "l's" in words like "travelling"; or including the "u's" in words like "colour" and "behaviour".
Okay. Now that I have you here, I have a bone to pick wrt collective nouns and singular/plural verbs.
The British say:
"The team HAVE arrived."
"The teams have arrived."
This *REALLY* bothers me!!!!
Americans say:
"The team HAS arrived."
"The teams HAVE arrived."
So, whaddaya think? Don't you agree that the American version makes more sense?
Edit: Oh, and speaking of 'old-fashioned', I smile every time my British friends say "whilst". I think it's sweet...and quaint.