Q: Is "everything else" singular or plural?
mjc
"Power" or "Point"?) and noticed that I had this line:
"Everything else are outputs".
The "are" seemed wrong, but "is" seemed wrong also:
"Everything else is outputs".
I finally changed it to "All others are outputs", but I don't know
whether the original should use "is" or "are".
I would appreciate any suggestions.
Thanks,
marty cohen
Derek Turner
> I was editing a PowerPoint slide (question: Does the "Less" go after
> "Power" or "Point"?) and noticed that I had this line: "Everything else
> are outputs".
> The "are" seemed wrong, but "is" seemed wrong also: "Everything else is
> outputs".
everything else is an output
>
Leslie Danks
But that sounds as if everything adds up to just one output. What about:
"Anything else is an output."
--
Les (BrE)
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
II prefer your version with "All". "Everything else" needs "is", but
I don't like either "output" and "outputs" in this example.
--
Jerry Friedman
Robert Lieblich
All else are outputs.
The problem is that "every<substantive>" is grammatically singular but
feels like a plural. That's why it's so accommodating to singular
they. But when you're talking about a whole bunch of stuff, its
plural-ness intrudes and it becomes unaccommodating to singulars.
Best to write around, as we have done.
--
Bob Lieblich
Everybody do like Sara Lee
Mark Brader
>>> ... "is" seemed wrong also: "Everything else is outputs".
That's acceptable. It's quite common for "is" to have a singular
subject and be followed by a plural, or vice versa.
Derek Turner:
>> everything else is an output
That's good.
Leslie Danks:
> But that sounds as if everything adds up to just one output.
It could have that meaning, but more likely that would be expressed in
some explicit form like "everything else forms a single output".
> What about:
> "Anything else is an output."
That's also acceptable, but it suggests that there may be outputs
you don't know about, so it looks peculiar if it's clear that you
actually know all the "things" that "everything" refers to.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | It is never good to adapt the design to the software;
m...@vex.net | it should be the other way around. --J.A. Durieux
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
<jerry_f...@yahoo.com> said:
I'm with Jerry on this: "All others are outputs",
--
athel
CDB
"The rest is output." There's precedent.
Mike Lyle
> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2009-02-19 01:02:45 +0100, "jerry_f...@yahoo.com"
>> <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> said:
>>>
>>> II prefer your version with "All". "Everything else" needs "is",
>>> but I don't like either "output" and "outputs" in this example.
>>
>> I'm with Jerry on this: "All others are outputs",
>
> "The rest is output." There's precedent.
All others are silence.
--
Mike.
richard....@gmail.com
> I was editing a PowerPoint slide (question: Does the "Less" go after
> "Power" or "Point"?) and noticed that I had this line:
> The "are" seemed wrong, but "is" seemed wrong also:
>
> I finally changed it to "All others areoutputs", but I don't know
> whether the original should use "is" or "are".
>
> I would appreciate any suggestions.
>
> Thanks,
>
> marty cohen
Wow, I'm amazed by how wrong the majority of these responses are. Yes,
you want the subject to agree with the verb. Both "everything else"
and "all" (in many cases) are generally considered singular. Thus, you
would say, "Everything else is an output" or "All that remains is an
output." It's worth noting though that these obviously collective
nouns (everyone, everything, etc.) are frequently made clearer and
less awkward by conjugating them with a verb as if they were plural.
When this enhances precision with the sentence, I'd recommend that.
The most surprising comments I'm reading, however, come from people
objecting to the fact that "outputs" is plural. Subject and verb
should agree in number, but not necessarily subject and subject
complement! (Or, in the case of a non-linking verb, direct object.)
By comparison, all of these sentences are fine:
I am two beings combined into one.
Let's play cops and robbers; you will be the cops, and I will be the
robbers.
Love is what matters. Everything else is details.
Yesterday, John ran two marathons.
Please give her Tylenol and a cold compress.
Similarly, "everything else is outputs" is perfectly acceptable by any
grammatical standard.
- Richard
Marius Hancu
> "Everything else are outputs".
> The "are" seemed wrong, but "is" seemed wrong also:
> "Everything else is outputs".
Let's switch to a more common noun in the plural, "lies," and search
in published books:
50 on "everything else is lies"
http://books.google.com/books?q=%22everything+else+is+lies%22&btnG=Search+Books
0 on "everything else are lies"
http://books.google.com/books?q=%22everything+else+are+lies%22&btnG=Search+Books
Thus,
"Everything else is outputs"
is the idiomatic version, IMO.
Marius Hancu
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> On Feb 18, 1:42 pm, mjc <mjco...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> > I was editing a PowerPoint slide (question: Does the "Less" go after
> > "Power" or "Point"?) and noticed that I had this line:
> > "Everything else areoutputs".
> > The "are" seemed wrong, but "is" seemed wrong also:
> > "Everything else isoutputs".
>
> > I finally changed it to "All others areoutputs", but I don't know
> > whether the original should use "is" or "are".
>
> > I would appreciate any suggestions.
>
> > Thanks,
>
> > marty cohen
>
> Wow, I'm amazed by how wrong the majority of these responses are. Yes,
> you want the subject to agree with the verb. Both "everything else"
> and "all" (in many cases) are generally considered singular. Thus, you
> would say, "Everything else is an output" or "All that remains is an
> output." It's worth noting though that these obviously collective
> nouns (everyone, everything, etc.) are frequently made clearer and
> less awkward by conjugating them with a verb as if they were plural.
> When this enhances precision with the sentence, I'd recommend that.
>
> The most surprising comments I'm reading, however, come from people
> objecting to the fact that "outputs" is plural. Subject and verb
> should agree in number, but not necessarily subject and subject
> complement! (Or, in the case of a non-linking verb, direct object.)
I don't see any responses (of the 10 Google Groups is showing me) that
say subject and verb should agree in number. Some people, including
me, said they didn't like "Everything else is outputs", but no one
stated a general rule like the one you apparently saw. I certainly
don't believe in such a rule.
Maybe GG is missing some posts.
> Similarly, "everything else is outputs" is perfectly acceptable by any
> grammatical standard.
Nobody said it wasn't, as far as I can see.
--
Jerry Friedman
Pat Durkin
news:7ed17e40-b415-42f7...@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
It's turtles all the way, isn't it?
Skitt
> <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I don't see any responses (of the 10 Google Groups is showing me)
>> that say subject and verb should agree in number. Some people,
>> including me, said they didn't like "Everything else is outputs",
>> but no one stated a general rule like the one you apparently saw. I
>> certainly don't believe in such a rule.
>>
>> Maybe GG is missing some posts.
>>
>>> Similarly, "everything else is outputs" is perfectly acceptable by
>>> any grammatical standard.
>>
>> Nobody said it wasn't, as far as I can see.
>
> It's turtles all the way, isn't it?
Are you a turtle?
--
Skitt (AmE)
Pat Durkin
news:gnn8f3$91v$1...@news.albasani.net
You bet your sweet ass I am.