neither of us have or had?
Rasmotte
Engish is not my mother tongue and I am just trying to say that my friend
and I have never been (or never went?) to Bath - starting the sentence with
"Neither of us".
My question is:
Is "neither of us" adequate (seing there are only two of us)?
and if it is (adequate) would you say:
1) neither of us ever went to Bath
2) neither of us has ever been to Bath
3) neither of us have ever been to Bath
...or something else?
Thanks,
Ras
Dagnytgrt
That sounds right to me - but I'm only an amateur grammarian, so someone may
have a more knowledgeable response...
Sally Milo
http://www.milodesign.com
Tucson, Arizona
Robert Lieblich
The first two are both grammatically correct. The third lacks
agreement between subject and predicate, because "neither" is a
grammatical singular, but you can expect to hear and see such
things, because there is a drift in usage. My suggestion is that
you avoid "neither ... are" yourself but be tolerant of those who
use it (unless you are discussing the particular usage).
There is a slight difference between the first two. The first tends
to be used in response to a suggestion that one of you went to Bath:
"No, neither of us ever went to bath." The second is the usual way
of expressing the fact without regard to what came before.
--
Bob Lieblich
Who, as it happens, has been to Bath. I was there on Christmas day.
George Hardy
> Hi there,
>
> Engish is not my mother tongue and I am just trying to say that my friend
> and I have never been (or never went?) to Bath - starting the sentence with
> "Neither of us".
>
> My question is:
> Is "neither of us" adequate (seing there are only two of us)?
>
> and if it is (adequate) would you say:
>
> 1) neither of us ever went to Bath
> 2) neither of us has ever been to Bath
> 3) neither of us have ever been to Bath
the singular.
GFH
Alan Jones
Why "adequate" rather than "acceptable" or even "correct"?
My immediate answer, as an educated speaker of British English, is (2). The
verb should be singular, because "neither" refers to each of us taken
singly. However, "have" is much more commonly heard, and may be regarded as
more appropriate in informal speech where "has" might sound too bookish.
The simple past (1) could be correct in a particular context: "Neither of us
ever went to Bath, though we lived for two years in Bristol, hardly half an
hour's drive away." This applies to a period of time that is now complete;
your chance of going to Bath has vanished into the past. If you are still
living in Bristol, and therefore still have the chance to go to Bath (i.e.
the time-period is not yet complete), you must say in BrE "Neither of us has
ever been to Bath, though we have been living in Bristol for two years".
I think some Americans don't make this distinction and always use the simple
past. For them, (1) would be correct even where (2) is required in BrE.
Alan Jones
Eric Walker
[...]
>I am just trying to say that my friend and I have never been
>(or never went?) to Bath - starting the sentence with
>"Neither of us".
>
>My question is:
>Is "neither of us" adequate (seing there are only two of us)?
>
>and if it is (adequate) would you say:
>
>1) neither of us ever went to Bath
>2) neither of us has ever been to Bath
>3) neither of us have ever been to Bath
>
>....or something else?
The word "neither" ultimately derives from the sense "not
either"--or, in effect, "not either one"--so it is singular in
sense; indeed, one could as well say "neither one." Thus, #3 is
right out for disagreement between subject and verb in number.
Numbers 1 and 2 differ slightly in meaning. #1 is in the simple
past tense; #2 is in the present perfect tense. The present
perfect tense "refers to time now past but in some way connected
with the present." (Curme, _English Grammar_.) It implies all
of the past life of the subject up to the instant moment. The
simple past tense "refers to time wholly past at the present
moment, be it a remote time or the second just past. . . ."
Thus, #1 implies a statement pertaining to a past moment, while
#2 implies a statement in the present.
#2 is what you would say in ordinary conversation. #1 is what
you would say in a context something like this: "We were young
then, and the price of even a rail ticket was a major matter.
Neither of us ever went to Bath." That is, it describes the
situation at _a time past_. You and your friend might well have
since been to Bath a dozen times each by now.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> The word "neither" ultimately derives from the sense "not
> either"--or, in effect, "not either one"--so it is singular in
> sense; indeed, one could as well say "neither one." Thus, #3 is
> right out for disagreement between subject and verb in number.
I think this is a typical instance of an essentially arbitrary
rule. As long as people think of "neither" as singular, they'll use
singular verbs with it. But if they start thinking of it as plural
(which is easy enough to do), they're going to use plural verbs.
And that's exactly what's happening. I've seen a number of
instances of "neither" with a plural verb even among the most
careful writers on AUE.
But don't take my word for it. Try:
<http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/038.html>
<http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=595351&secid=.-&hh=1>, 3 and
4
Since I view the choice of usage in this instance as a matter of
convention, I don't think it matters which is used, singular or
plural. It's a good idea to make one choice and stick with it. And
there's always this to be said for the singular -- it won't draw
fire from the hidebound.
--
Bob Lieblich
Rasmotte
Ras
(Who wanted to use a clever sentence using "neither" to show you I actually
understood but couldn't think of anything...)
Eric Walker
>Eric Walker wrote:
>
>[ ... ]
>
>> The word "neither" ultimately derives from the sense "not
>> either"--or, in effect, "not either one"--so it is singular
>> in sense; indeed, one could as well say "neither one." Thus,
>> #3 is right out for disagreement between subject and verb in
>> number.
>
>I think this is a typical instance of an essentially arbitrary
>rule. As long as people think of "neither" as singular,
>they'll use singular verbs with it. But if they start thinking
>of it as plural (which is easy enough to do), they're going to
>use plural verbs.
When one can, without lifting any eyebrows, say "Neither two
were involved"--as we can now say "Neither one was involved"--
then we can concede another once-useful word to have been melted
down in the moronic inferno; until then, "neither" remains
indubitably singular.
(A context for "neither two" would be even more interesting.
"Neither two of the three"? Anyone wanna try the logic exercise
on that one?)
Robert Lieblich
>
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:33:49 -0500, Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
> >Eric Walker wrote:
> >
> >[ ... ]
> >
> >> The word "neither" ultimately derives from the sense "not
> >> either"--or, in effect, "not either one"--so it is singular
> >> in sense; indeed, one could as well say "neither one." Thus,
> >> #3 is right out for disagreement between subject and verb in
> >> number.
> >
> >I think this is a typical instance of an essentially arbitrary
> >rule. As long as people think of "neither" as singular,
> >they'll use singular verbs with it. But if they start thinking
> >of it as plural (which is easy enough to do), they're going to
> >use plural verbs.
>
> When one can, without lifting any eyebrows, say "Neither two
> were involved"--as we can now say "Neither one was involved"--
> then we can concede another once-useful word to have been melted
> down in the moronic inferno; until then, "neither" remains
> indubitably singular.
I just ran a test on Alta Vista for "neither of the two were" (not,
I admit, the exact wording Eric Walker offered) and "neither of the
two was." Score: "were" 74, "was" 53. That was so much fun I
switched to the present tense. Score: "are" 74, "is" 135. Pretty
close score overall.
As seems to happen often when Eric and I get a dialogue started, I'm
getting plenty of scorn but no true response. The simple truth is
that lots of people use plural verbs with "neither." We have the
choice of spitting in their eyes or trying to figure out what's
going on. Here's what I think is going on:
When your subject is patently singlar, you use a singular verb:
"John is at home." When it is patently plural, you use a plural
verb: "john and Mary are at home." When you have a double subject
but the statement made is true of only one of the two elements of
the subject, each of which is itself singular, the speaker feels the
subject as a whole to be singular: "John or Mary is at home," equal
to "John is at home or Mary is at home." But remember, when the
statement made by the sentence is true of both of them, the verb is
plural: "John and Mary are at home."
In a "neither ... nor" sentence, the two parts of the subject, even
if each is singular, share the characteristic attributed to the
subject. In "Neither John nor Mary is/are at home," what's true of
John is true of Mary. The subject as a whole is *felt* to be
plural. Voila! Plural verb -- "are."
Analogies don't always work. Nor does etymology.[1] Whatever is
going on has not generated a frequently used locution of a form like
"Neither two are at home" -- yet. But you do see and hear "Neither
are at home" and "Neither of them are at home." The existence of
some idiomatic forms where "neither" takes the plural does not
require that it be considered plural for all purposes. Drawing
analogies, when you're discussing usage, has obvious limitations.
> (A context for "neither two" would be even more interesting.
> "Neither two of the three"? Anyone wanna try the logic exercise
> on that one?)
Logic has little enough to do with it. There is clearly a process
going on in which the commonality of what affects a compound subject
with singular elements is causing people to use plural verbs with
"neither." I don't see this as any more inherently defective than
things like "A lot of men are wearing hats." There's a clear sense
of plurality to many of these "neither" sentences. The result -- a
bunch of sentences with plural verbs following "neither."
As always, it's easy to climb on one's good steed Supercilious and
ride off in all directions. But the language has its own
direction. And where the particular locution is common, innocuous,
and even -- to some extent -- justifiable, the most I think one can
do is stick to the tried and true for oneself and face up to what's
happening.
[1] Thanks to mplsray for unearthing the term "etymological
fallacy." It seems apt here.
--
Bob Lieblich
Neither a borrower nor a lender are I
Mark Wallace
"Eric Walker" <ewa...@owlcroft.com> wrote in message
news:rjnyxrebjypebsgpb...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> Numbers 1 and 2 differ slightly in meaning. #1 is in the simple
> past tense; #2 is in the present perfect tense. The present
> perfect tense "refers to time now past but in some way connected
> with the present." (Curme, _English Grammar_.) It implies all
> of the past life of the subject up to the instant moment. The
> simple past tense "refers to time wholly past at the present
> moment, be it a remote time or the second just past. . . ."
> Thus, #1 implies a statement pertaining to a past moment, while
> #2 implies a statement in the present.
>
> #2 is what you would say in ordinary conversation. #1 is what
> you would say in a context something like this: "We were young
> then, and the price of even a rail ticket was a major matter.
> Neither of us ever went to Bath." That is, it describes the
> situation at _a time past_. You and your friend might well have
> since been to Bath a dozen times each by now.
Y'know, it's funny, but I just *knew* you'd read Curmie's chapters
on verb tenses, after the trouncing I gave you, the other day.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
You want nanomachines?
I'll give you bloody nanomachines!
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/nmaj.htm
____________________________
Eric Walker
[...]
>I just ran a test on Alta Vista for "neither of the two were"
>(not, I admit, the exact wording Eric Walker offered) and
>"neither of the two was." Score: "were" 74, "was" 53. That
>was so much fun I switched to the present tense. Score: "are"
>74, "is" 135. Pretty close score overall.
>
>As seems to happen often when Eric and I get a dialogue
>started, I'm getting plenty of scorn but no true response.
The response: people make errors. Nowadays lots of people make
lots of errors. They are still errors. Is that sufficiently
responsive?
Indeed, a sufficient mass of ignorant or stupid people can
embalm errors in the language: the dictionaries and usage
manuals are full of follies that are now the accepted norm.
That does not mean that we should lie supine to further rapes of
the mother tongue.
Joins are conjunctive or disjunctive: _and_ or _or_. A
conjunctive join makes a unit of two or more elements; a
disjunct join leaves the elements separate and singular. "John
and Mary" is a conjunct join, making a singular concept of the
separate elements "John" and "Mary"; "John or Mary" is a
disjunctive join that leaves the individual elements singular,
and signifies that we are addressing our thought to them one at
a time in turn.
Both John and Mary are going. Either John or Mary is going. I
cannot believe that even in this age anyone would carry a weapon
on behalf of "Either John or Mary are going." But somehow, in
English, casting sentences in the negative opens the door to all
sorts of follies, most or all of which would look as bizarre as
they truly are if set out in a positive casting. Thus we can
find--as we have seen, easily find--the ridiculous "Neither John
nor Mary are going." Its frequency does not abate its folly.
I often feel I should print that in all block caps: Its
frequency does not abate its folly. I know of few other fields
(none come to mind at once) in which it is held, nay, not simply
held, but *cherished* as a belief that enough wrongs make a
right. When enough drivers run STOP signs, running STOP signs
is right driving. When enough psychos shoot down other kids in
school, mass murder is good behavior. When enough wars are
fought, war is civilized. But when enough people make this or
that gross language-use error, that error becomes "good" usage.
In a sense, it often does, in that it becomes the normal
pattern. That doesn't make it good. There are an awful lot of
follies in English because those who value the language could
not or did not do enough to resist them. (And I suppose, by
parallel, that makes passive acceptance of error "good"
behavior.)
"Neither A nor B are" remains a simple solecism until "Neither
two of them are going" is standard. The end.
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> I often feel I should print that in all block caps: Its
> frequency does not abate its folly. I know of few other fields
> (none come to mind at once) in which it is held, nay, not simply
> held, but *cherished* as a belief that enough wrongs make a
> right. When enough drivers run STOP signs, running STOP signs
> is right driving.
Enough wrongs do make a right -- and not just in English usage.
When enough people speed, the police stop enforcing the literal
speed limit and wait for the person exceeding it by 15 or 20 mph.
When I lived in Boston, jaywalking was rampant. The police gave up
and allowed it, at least in certain places. In California, turning
right on red without stopping is so rampant that the act of not
stopping has acquired the name "the California stop." Is this
behavior "right" or "wrong"? I find the question meaningless. It is
widespread and tolerated. It's what people do. It's driving.
I keep saying that there is nothing in the logic of the language
that requires a singular verb with "Neither A nor B ... " Am I
wrong? If so, what is it that makes "neither" take a singular verb
-- other than custom. The explanation has followed the usage, and
in my last posting I offered a contrary explanation for the contrary
usage. The singular has predominated for a long time, but the
plural has also been in constant use, and that use is increasing.
I've seen speed limits raised in places because NOBODY obeyed them
-- aside, perhaps, from a few people who suffer from OCD or are too
old to be driving. And there comes a point in English usage when
the same thing happens -- usages enter the language, and no one
objects except a few mossbacks. Who you wants to be a mossback?
> When enough psychos shoot down other kids in
> school, mass murder is good behavior. When enough wars are
> fought, war is civilized. But when enough people make this or
> that gross language-use error, that error becomes "good" usage.
That last is Lieblich's Law. (I've posted it to AUE more than
once.) And it is correct. It's based on the historical development
of languages -- not just English, all natural languages. One might
as easily deny evolution because a just God would not allow
mutations.
> In a sense, it often does, in that it becomes the normal
> pattern. That doesn't make it good.
That doesn't make it good. Note that it doesn't make it (the
process of change) bad either. Not all changes are for the good.
Not all are for the bad. But no one gets to dictate the result. We
can scream bloody murder if so inclined. The language goes right
ahead and does what it does.
[ ... ]
> "Neither A nor B are" remains a simple solecism until "Neither
> two of them are going" is standard. The end.
This is patently false. You need only consider the parallel, and
equally offensive (to you), usage "for you and I." That one is
creeping into the language even though almost no native speaker says
"for I." Similarly, I caught you just the other day using "singular
they" (actually "their") in a context where it was quite clear you
didn't even realize you were doing so. And there can be no
legitimate dispute that some singular they's are worse than others.
So why can't "neither" take a plural verb in some contexts and not
in others?
I don't like these usages, either. I don't welcome them, and I wish
they'd go away. But they don't listen to me. Nor are they some
Mark of Cain, or even the brand of illiteracy. They are an
indication that native speakers' feelings about what is correct are
changing, and the language is going to change right along with
them. I see nothing wrong with trying to stand in the way of some
of these developments; I myself correct "neither are" when I
encounter it. But I do so only because I don't yet consider it
fully standard. I have no doubt whatever that eventually it will
be. Calling it an error is a copout.
--
Bob Lieblich
'Nuff said
Eric Walker
[...]
>When enough people speed, the police stop enforcing the literal
>speed limit and wait for the person exceeding it by 15 or 20
>mph. When I lived in Boston, jaywalking was rampant. The
>police gave up and allowed it, at least in certain places. In
>California, turning right on red without stopping is so rampant
>that the act of not stopping has acquired the name "the
>California stop." Is this behavior "right" or "wrong"? I find
>the question meaningless.
When you or someone dear to you is killed or maimed by some
clown performing one of those "usage-tolerated" maneuvers, you
may find the principles "right" and "wrong" acquiring a
late-blooming meaning for you.
Mark Wallace
He's right, Robbie. People are killed to death all the time by
dangling participles.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
Little girl lost?
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/mother.htm
____________________________
Zach
> embalm errors in the language: the dictionaries and usage
> manuals are full of follies that are now the accepted norm.
> That does not mean that we should lie supine to further rapes of
> the mother tongue.
[snip]
> I often feel I should print that in all block caps: Its
> frequency does not abate its folly. I know of few other fields
> (none come to mind at once) in which it is held, nay, not simply
> held, but *cherished* as a belief that enough wrongs make a
> right. When enough drivers run STOP signs, running STOP signs
> is right driving. When enough psychos shoot down other kids in
> school, mass murder is good behavior. When enough wars are
> fought, war is civilized. But when enough people make this or
> that gross language-use error, that error becomes "good" usage.
>
> In a sense, it often does, in that it becomes the normal
> pattern. That doesn't make it good. There are an awful lot of
> follies in English because those who value the language could
> not or did not do enough to resist them. (And I suppose, by
> parallel, that makes passive acceptance of error "good"
> behavior.)
What you're complaining about are the natural changes that all
languages go through. I would never say "neither has," for instance.
It sounds odd to me. "Neither have" is much more natural. What
exactly makes this "rape of the mother tounge," and exactly why is
*your* brand of English "better" than mine? All you're doing is
pinning down one dialect of English common in the recent past (what
1950-ish?) and saying "THIS is correct English. All others are in
error." But certainly Shakespear would disagree that the English you
use is "correct."
The point is you can't pin down language, because almost by definition
it's an ever changing thing. Indeed, the only unchanging ones are
dead langagues. Really, your whole claim boils down to "my English is
right because it's older." But then you might as well start speaking
Old English (or at least Colonial English) if you want to go down that
route.
- Z a c h
Robert Lieblich
>
> "Eric Walker" <ewa...@owlcroft.com> wrote in message
> news:rjnyxrebjypebsgpb...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:25:41 -0500, Robert Lieblich wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >When enough people speed, the police stop enforcing the literal
> > >speed limit and wait for the person exceeding it by 15 or 20
> > >mph. When I lived in Boston, jaywalking was rampant. The
> > >police gave up and allowed it, at least in certain places. In
> > >California, turning right on red without stopping is so rampant
> > >that the act of not stopping has acquired the name "the
> > >California stop." Is this behavior "right" or "wrong"? I find
> > >the question meaningless.
> >
> > When you or someone dear to you is killed or maimed by some
> > clown performing one of those "usage-tolerated" maneuvers, you
> > may find the principles "right" and "wrong" acquiring a
> > late-blooming meaning for you.
>
> He's right, Robbie. People are killed to death all the time by
> dangling participles.
You'd think they'd learn to duck when they walk under them.
My computer has made many a fatal error, but both it and I are still
here.
--
Bob Lieblich
aka Robbie (with apologies to AEU's other Robbie)
Eric Walker
[...]
>What you're complaining about are the natural changes that all
>languages go through. . . .
No. What I'm complaining about are changes that diminish the
ability of a careful user of the language to place thoughts in
the mind of another careful user with precision and elegance. I
am in favor of changes that augment that ability. But the sad
fact is that, in language as in biology, the vast majority of
spontaneous mutations are pernicious.
Those who applaud change merely because it _is_ change are, not
to put too fine a point on it, fools.
Polar
<ewa...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>On 17 Jan 2002 09:02:30 -0800, Zach wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>What you're complaining about are the natural changes that all
>>languages go through. . . .
>
>No. What I'm complaining about are changes that diminish the
>ability of a careful user of the language to place thoughts in
>the mind of another careful user with precision and elegance.
In certain quarters, including some academic ones, you can
lynched for expressing antediluvian sentiments like those
(which I share).
I am in favor of changes that augment that ability. But the sad
>fact is that, in language as in biology, the vast majority of
>spontaneous mutations are pernicious.
Like, y'know...uh, oh, *you* know, like, uh the way people, like,
*talk* now...
>
>Those who applaud change merely because it _is_ change are, not
>to put too fine a point on it, fools.
Well...fools is *so* unkind...how about unawakened sleepers?
--
Polar