as follow vs. as follows.
Hongyi Zhao
What's differences between as follow and as follows?
--
.: Hongyi Zhao [ hongyi.zhao AT gmail.com ] Free as in Freedom :.
James Hogg
<hongy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>What's differences between as follow and as follows?
I assume you are referring to the standard phrase for introducing
an enumeration, explanation, quotation or the like. The answer to
your question is as follows:
1. The form "as follow" is incorrect.
2. The form "as follows" is correct.
3. Use this form with the singular verb even if more than one
thing appears in the list that follows the phrase.
James
(BrE with a distinctly septentrional flavour)
Hongyi Zhao
wrote:
>>What's differences between as follow and as follows?
>
>I assume you are referring to the standard phrase for introducing
>an enumeration, explanation, quotation or the like. The answer to
>your question is as follows:
>
>1. The form "as follow" is incorrect.
>2. The form "as follows" is correct.
>3. Use this form with the singular verb even if more than one
>thing appears in the list that follows the phrase.
Very good, thanks a lot, I've got it.
Regards,
Hongyi Zhao
wrote:
>I assume you are referring to the standard phrase for introducing
>an enumeration, explanation, quotation or the like. The answer to
>your question is as follows:
>
>1. The form "as follow" is incorrect.
>2. The form "as follows" is correct.
>3. Use this form with the singular verb even if more than one
>thing appears in the list that follows the phrase.
Furthermore, consider the following two sentences, which is/are
grammatical:
1- The questions are following.
2- The questions are as following.
What's the diffreneces between the above two sentences and the
following one:
The questions are as follows.
Don Phillipson
news:2fmfq4te0lcm775ub...@4ax.com...
> Furthermore, consider the following two sentences, which is/are
> grammatical:
>
> 1- The questions are following.
>
> 2- The questions are as following.
>
> What's the diffreneces between the above two sentences and the
> following one:
>
> The questions are as follows.
A. In real contexts, your text may need no sentence of this
character. You simply print the questions: or, if you prefer,
write: "the questions follow."
B. Your choice between follow and follows should obey
the general rule of grammar that subjects and verbs must
agree in number, i.e. one item follows (singular) but
two items follow (plural.) This rule is invariable i.e.
allows no exceptions.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Ian Jackson
<e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> writes
"The question is as follows."
"The questions are as follow."
However, for the plural, you nearly always see:
"The questions are as follows."
--
Ian
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Well now, ...!
OED says:
... as follows: a prefatory formula used to introduce a statement,
enumeration, or the like.
The const. in as follows is impers., and the verb should always be
used in the sing.; for the incorrect pl. see quots. 1776, 1797.
1776 G. CAMPBELL Rhetoric I. II. iv. 495 Analogy as well as usage
favour this mode of expression: ‘The conditions of the agreement as
follows,’ and not as follow. A few late writers have inconsiderately
adopted this last form through a mistake of the construction.
1797$ GODWIN Enquirer II. xii. §1. 374 The reasons that dissuade
us..are as follow
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
James Hogg
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
According to Kenneth G. Wilson you are not being pedantic, just
precious, if that's any consolation. He writes in "The Columbia
Guide to Standard American English":
"Whether the preceding matter is plural or not, _as follows_ is
always singular: _The reasons for these decisions are as
follows._ To use _as follow_ instead is sufficiently precious
sounding to make your reader break stride: don’t do it."
In construction like these, as happens so often in English, the
singular subject of the verb is understood.
CDB
[previous question and answer]
> Furthermore, consider the following two sentences, which is/are
> grammatical:
> 1- The questions are following.
> 2- The questions are as following.
Neither version is correct. You can write "The questions are the
following.", followed by the list of questions.
> What's the diffreneces between the above two sentences and the
> following one:
("What are the differences..." or "What is the difference...")
> The questions are as follows.
There is no practical difference between your last example and the
corrected example I suggested above. Both are correct, and either one
can be used to introduce a list of questions. I would use a colon
after the second ("The questions are as follows:") and either a colon
or a period after "The questions are the following".
Ian Jackson
<Jas....@gOUTmail.com> writes
But which is worse? "Wrong and pedantic" (which I thought I might be) or
"wrong and precious" (which is what I would appear to be)?
--
Ian
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"Wrong" sounds so culpable. "Innocently misled" would be better.
Ian Jackson
Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes
If ever a word needed a hyphen, "misled" is it. I never fail to read it
initially as "mizzeld".
--
Ian
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <1v5gq4977dnupeufm...@4ax.com>, "Peter
>Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes
>>On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:13:04 +0000, Ian Jackson
>><ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>But which is worse? "Wrong and pedantic" (which I thought I might be) or
>>>"wrong and precious" (which is what I would appear to be)?
>>
>>"Wrong" sounds so culpable. "Innocently misled" would be better.
>>
>If ever a word needed a hyphen, "misled" is it. I never fail to read it
>initially as "mizzeld".
You are not alone.
There are occasional references to this misreading in this ng.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> said:
Not recently (maybe because it's a long time since we heard from Peter
Moylan), I think, and I forget what we call them (the general
misapprehension, not the specific one for misled (which I also share: I
was certain that a verb misle existed until well into adulthood)).
Is a mishy-phen, or is that something different?
In a text I was proof-reading yesterday I saw a lovely one. The writer
had written "lovestruck", but the printer had rendered this at the end
of a line as
loves-
truck
rather than as
love-
struck
I was wondering what a love truck might be -- something that might
interest Rey, perhaps.
--
athel
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On 2009-02-27 19:28:10 +0100, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
><ma...@peterduncanson.net> said:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:52:46 +0000, Ian Jackson
>> <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <1v5gq4977dnupeufm...@4ax.com>, "Peter
>>> Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes
>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:13:04 +0000, Ian Jackson
>>>> <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But which is worse? "Wrong and pedantic" (which I thought I might be) or
>>>>> "wrong and precious" (which is what I would appear to be)?
>>>>
>>>> "Wrong" sounds so culpable. "Innocently misled" would be better.
>>>>
>>> If ever a word needed a hyphen, "misled" is it. I never fail to read it
>>> initially as "mizzeld".
>>
>> You are not alone.
>>
>> There are occasional references to this misreading in this ng.
>
>Not recently (maybe because it's a long time since we heard from Peter
>Moylan), I think, and I forget what we call them (the general
>misapprehension, not the specific one for misled (which I also share: I
>was certain that a verb misle existed until well into adulthood)).
>
>Is a mishy-phen, or is that something different?
>
I think that is a misp-laced hyphen.
>In a text I was proof-reading yesterday I saw a lovely one. The writer
>had written "lovestruck", but the printer had rendered this at the end
>of a line as
>
>loves-
>truck
>
>rather than as
>
>love-
>struck
>
>I was wondering what a love truck might be -- something that might
>interest Rey, perhaps.
--
Mike Lyle
And some of us take every opportunity to pronounce it that way in
conversation. But the joke is pretty threadbare by now. The hyphen
would, of course, have your readers wondering which mis had led you. And
what, if not a miswritten miss or ms, it might /be/.
The social stigma attaching to wrong preciosity is easier to bear than
the one nailed on wrong pedantry. One could always pretend one's
apparent preciosity was merely ironic, or the fault of one's parents or
somebody; but being pedantic and mistaken exposes one to derision with
nowhere to hide.
--
Mike.
Robert Lieblich
>
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:37:13 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On 2009-02-27 19:28:10 +0100, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
> ><ma...@peterduncanson.net> said:
> >
> >> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:52:46 +0000, Ian Jackson
> >> <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In message <1v5gq4977dnupeufm...@4ax.com>, "Peter
> >>> Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes
> >>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:13:04 +0000, Ian Jackson
> >>>> <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But which is worse? "Wrong and pedantic" (which I thought I might be) or
> >>>>> "wrong and precious" (which is what I would appear to be)?
> >>>>
> >>>> "Wrong" sounds so culpable. "Innocently misled" would be better.
> >>>>
> >>> If ever a word needed a hyphen, "misled" is it. I never fail to read it
> >>> initially as "mizzeld".
> >>
> >> You are not alone.
> >>
> >> There are occasional references to this misreading in this ng.
> >
> >Not recently (maybe because it's a long time since we heard from Peter
> >Moylan), I think, and I forget what we call them (the general
> >misapprehension, not the specific one for misled (which I also share: I
> >was certain that a verb misle existed until well into adulthood)).
> >
> >Is a mishy-phen, or is that something different?
> >
> I think that is a misp-laced hyphen.
"Misled" has given its name to the entire species (much as "eggcorn"
has done). The mispronunciation that results from misperceiving the
morphemes that make up a word is known as a "misle," pronounced
"mizzle," plural "misles." We had some threads on the topic here in
AUE some years back.
My memory tells me that Fowler described "as follows" as an ellipsis
for something like "as the case follows." Unfortunately, I can't find
anything to confirm this. Regardless, his position, which Burchfield
retains, is that "as follows" is the only correct phrasing regardless
of the grammatical number of any of its neighbors. Burchfield
describes the phrase as "cataphoretic" (and how can you argue with
that?) He also suggests that it's a shortening of "as it follows."
That's inconsistent with my memory of what Fowler said, but since I
can't prove what Fowler said I should probably have stopped at least a
sentence or two earlier.
I agree that "as follow" used as an introductory phrase is precious.
It's also, IMO, wrong.
--
Bob Lieblich
Big on followership
Mike Lyle
[...]>
>> In a text I was proof-reading yesterday I saw a lovely one. The
>> writer had written "lovestruck", but the printer had rendered this
>> at the end of a line as
>>
>> loves-
>> truck
>>
>> rather than as
>>
>> love-
>> struck
>>
>> I was wondering what a love truck might be -- something that might
>> interest Rey, perhaps.
Or Ron Draney, if it's a sub-genre of truckerbilly music.
Ah'm a little overweight
An' muh log-book's outadate,
But Smokey's outta sight
An' ah'm gonna see muh baby tonight!
--
Mike.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> OED says:
>
> ... as follows: a prefatory formula used to introduce a statement,
> enumeration, or the like.
> The const. in as follows is impers., and the verb should always be
> used in the sing.; for the incorrect pl. see quots. 1776, 1797.
>
> 1776 G. CAMPBELL Rhetoric I. II. iv. 495 Analogy as well as usage
> favour this mode of expression: 'The conditions of the agreement as
> follows,' and not as follow. A few late writers have inconsiderately
> adopted this last form through a mistake of the construction.
Though other commentators say just the opposite:
"He then read the conditions _as follow_."--"The conditions are
_as follow_."--_Nutting's Gram._, p. 106. "The principal
evidences on which this assertion is ground, are _as follow_."--
_Gurney's Essays_, p. 166. "The Quiescent verbs are _as
follow_."--_Pike's Heb. Lex._, p. 184. "The other numbers are
duplications of these, and proceed _as follow_."--_Dr. Murray's
Hist. of Lang._, Vol. ii, p. 35. "The most eminent of the kennel
are bloodhounds, which lead the van, and are _as
follow_."--_Steele, Tattler_, No. 62. "His words are _as
follow_."--_Spect._, No. 62. "The words are _as follow_."--
_Addison, Spect._, No. 513. "The objections that are raised
against it as a tragedy, are _as follow_."--_Gay, Pref. to What d'
ye call it.?_ "The particulars are _as follow_."--_Bucke's
Gram_., p. 93. "The principal interjections in English are _as
follow_."--_Ward's Gram_., p. 81. In all these instances, one may
suppose the final clause to mean "as _they here_ follow;"--or
supposing _as_ to be a pronoun, one may conceive it to mean,
"such_ as follow." But some critical writers, it appears, prefer
the singular verb, "_as follows_." Hear Campbell: [expanded
version of quote given by OED above] ...
Lindley Murray was so much puzzled with Tooke's notion of _as_ and
Campbell's doctrine of the _impersonal verb_ [in the above quote],
that he has expressly left his pupils to hesitate and doubt, like
himself, whether one ought to say "_as follows_" or "as follow,"
when the preceding noun is plural; or--to furnish an alternative,
(if they choose it,) he shows them at last how they may _dodge the
question_, by adopting some other phraseology. He begins thus:
"_Grammarians_ differ in opinion, respecting the propriety of the
following modes of expression: 'The arguments advanced were nearly
_as follows_;' 'the positions were, _as appears_,
incontrovertible.'"-- _Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 146. ...
A late writer expresses his decision of the foregoing question
thus: "Of all the different opinions on a grammatical subject,
which have arisen in the literary world, there scarcely appears
one more indefensible than that of supposing _as follows_ to be an
impersonal verb, and to be correctly used in such sentences as
this, 'The conditions were _as follows_.' Nay, we are told that
"A few late writers have adopted this form, 'The conditions were
as follow,' _inconsiderately_;" ..."--_Nixon's Parser_, p. 145.
... In regard to the point at issue, I shall add but one critical
authority more: "'The circumstances were _as follows_.' Several
grammarians and critics have approved this phraseology: I am
inclined, however with those who prefer '_as follow_.'"--_Crombie,
on Etym. and Synt._, p. 388
Goold Brown, _The Grammar of English Grammars_, 1851
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Sorry, captain. Convenient
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |technobabble levels are dangerously
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |low.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572