"A number of..." singular or plural?

[MC]

This is probably a perennial FAQ, but I was struck by an apparent
inconsistency in the phrase "a number of."

In usage the verb agreement is always plural - "a number of trees were
cut down" - but wouldn't the rules of grammar indicate a singular verb?

--

"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones

[Harrison Hill]

On Apr 11, 2:37 pm, MC <copes...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
> This is probably a perennial FAQ, but I was struck by an apparent
> inconsistency in the phrase "a number of."
>
> In usage the verb agreement is always plural - "a number of trees were
> cut down" - but wouldn't the rules of grammar indicate a singular verb?

Most people in this group don't have visual imagination. Most people
in the outside world do.

When you say "A number of trees..." we the outsiders see a clump of
trees stretching away into the distance, To rein back afterwards and
suggest that those trees are now somehow meant to be singular would be
ridiculous.

[Mark Brader]

M. Cope:

> This is probably a perennial FAQ,

Yep: http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxanumbe.html

> but I was struck by an apparent inconsistency in the phrase "a number of."
>
> In usage the verb agreement is always plural - "a number of trees were
> cut down" - but wouldn't the rules of grammar indicate a singular verb?

The verb agrees with the sense of the subject, not its grammatical form.
"A number of trees" is plural in sense. For an example the other way,
consider "Fifty cents is a good price." The sense is singular because
it's about a single amount of money.
--
Mark Brader At any rate, C++ != C. Actually, the value of
Toronto the expression "C++ != C" is [undefined].
m...@vex.net -- Peter da Silva

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:37:39 -0400, MC wrote:

> This is probably a perennial FAQ, but I was struck by an apparent
> inconsistency in the phrase "a number of."
>
> In usage the verb agreement is always plural - "a number of trees were
> cut down" - but wouldn't the rules of grammar indicate a singular verb?

You are quite correct about the sempiternal quality of the issue, which
in years past I have opined at length.

My own feeling is strong that the issue is best sidestepped. The
indefinite article necessarily implies singularity: it is hard to swallow
a casting in which "an X do" (or the like). On the other hand, most
people feel the form as having a plural sense. There is a very old,
common, and stable word that serves such needs well: "many". Other like
words are also available. My advice, again, is to regard the "a number
of" form as what Garner calls "skunked" (damned if you do, damned if you
don't).


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Guy Barry]

On Apr 11, 2:37 pm, MC <copes...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:

> This is probably a perennial FAQ, but I was struck by an apparent
> inconsistency in the phrase "a number of."
>
> In usage the verb agreement is always plural - "a number of trees were
> cut down" - but wouldn't the rules of grammar indicate a singular verb?

In such constructions the phrase "a number of" acts as a quantifier
rather than as a genuine noun; we aren't referring to an actual
number. Contrast "the number of trees was one hundred".

There are parallel constructions that use a plural verb, e.g. "a
handful of people were present", "a lot of trees were cut down", and
cf. similar constructions without "of", e.g. "a few people were
present", "a hundred trees were cut down".

--
Guy Barry

[Donna Richoux]

MC <cope...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:

> This is probably a perennial FAQ, but I was struck by an apparent
> inconsistency in the phrase "a number of."
>
> In usage the verb agreement is always plural - "a number of trees were
> cut down" - but wouldn't the rules of grammar indicate a singular verb?

Try looking up "notional agreement". For example, the American Heritage
Guide to Contemporary Usage And Style has several pages, uh, screens
worth of discussion in Google Books.

--
Best -- Donna Richoux

[pensive hamster]

On Apr 12, 8:06 am, Guy Barry <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2:37 pm, MC <copes...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
>
> > This is probably a perennial FAQ, but I was struck by an apparent
> > inconsistency in the phrase "a number of."
>
> > In usage the verb agreement is always plural - "a number of trees were
> > cut down" - but wouldn't the rules of grammar indicate a singular verb?
>
> In such constructions the phrase "a number of" acts as a quantifier
> rather than as a genuine noun; we aren't referring to an actual
> number.  Contrast "the number of trees was one hundred".
>

Yes, that is right. It was the trees (plural) that were cut down, not
a number.

If it was a number that had been cut down, it would say "a number was
cut down". If, for example, a single number had been removed from a
sign using cutting tools, as distinct from falling off all by itself.

You could say " the number of trees in the area was reduced". You
could just about say "the number of trees in the area was cut down",
though that would be slightly odd usage.

[Mike L]

Yes, that's right.

Changing the subject a little, has everybody noticed "the past number
of years"? Why it feels odd to me is that "number" is so vague that it
could as well mean "very few" as "very many", so I suppose I'd use
some phrase with "few", "several", or "many". But then I wondered if
it was being used with deliberation, as I seem to have heard it most
often from Gerry Adams: was it not a typical Hibernicism, but a piece
of ambiguous politician-speak?

--
Mike.

[semir...@my-deja.com]

On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, MC <copes...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:

> This is probably a perennial FAQ, but I was struck by an apparent
> inconsistency in the phrase "a number of."
> In usage the verb agreement is always plural - "a number of trees were
> cut down" - but wouldn't the rules of grammar indicate a singular verb?

"A number of" indicates more than one

A number of pines were cut down but a group of oaks was spared

[MC]

In article
<adc7993f-3cbb-48ee...@h20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

semir...@my-deja.com wrote:

> On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, MC <copes...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
>
> > This is probably a perennial FAQ, but I was struck by an apparent
> > inconsistency in the phrase "a number of."
> > In usage the verb agreement is always plural - "a number of trees were
> > cut down" - but wouldn't the rules of grammar indicate a singular verb?
>
> "A number of" indicates more than one

True, but you wouldn't say "More than one tree were cut down."

Maybe "several" is a more workable meaning - and you *would* say,
"Several trees were cut down."

>
> A number of pines were cut down but a group of oaks was spared

[semir...@my-deja.com]

On Apr 13, 2:41 am, MC <copes...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:

>semireti...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, MC <copes...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:

>>>This is probably a perennial FAQ, but I was struck by an apparent
>>>inconsistency in the phrase "a number of."
>>>In usage the verb agreement is always plural - "a number of trees were
>>>cut down" - but wouldn't the rules of grammar indicate a singular verb?

>>"A number of" indicates more than one

>True, but you wouldn't say "More than one tree were cut down."

Hard to answer that!
Probably it is that the strength of the "one" next to the verb
overpowers what should be the logical answer

[THE COLONEL]

<semir...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:62d9edab-c23b-44c6...@v22g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

A number always is. The subject can never be part of a prepositional
phrase.

I KNOW 'CAUSE I'M A GRAMMARIAN!

--
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:48:33 -0500

From: "%" <per...@gmail.com>

Newsgroups: alt.suicide.holiday

References: <Y7Wdna3tC6vJlhrS...@giganews.com>
<jm72vs$84u$3...@dont-email.me>
In-Reply-To: <jm72vs$84u$3...@dont-email.me>

Subject: Re: OK , LRTS GET THINGS STARTED

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:51:01 -0700


Here's Percy Pervert (aka %, aka assworm, aka squiggles) trying to get the
shit rolling:
>>>>> "well just hold on and invalid will be here to tell you what to do"
>>>>
Then I said:
>>>> "I'll sniff her pussy while we're waiting."
>>>
Then Percy says:
>>>"she probably won't let you"

I then said:
>>"She would if she saw my tongue."
>
Then Percy said:
>"no she'd just think about how much your language has lost its impact ,
> after a while cunt , cock , dick , balls and such just get boring"

Then I slap Percy's fat face with this:
"If you don't like it, why not get the fuck out!"

LOL!