Should "fact" be singular or plural?

Unknown

unread,

Jun 27, 2012, 2:29:16 PM6/27/12

to

I often wonder whether to use "fact" or "facts" in the following kind
of sentence:

"The fact that the defendant admits that he saw John, asked John for a
ride, and was later seen with John's walllet should give the jury more
than enough ground for convicting the defendant of the murder."

I recognized that the sentence contains more than one fact, but using
"facts" here just doesn't sound right to me.

So I was wondering what the grammarians here thought?

Thanks very much in advance for your opinions.

Bob

Curlytop

unread,

Jun 27, 2012, 2:44:33 PM6/27/12

to

Bob Bridges <> set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

To me the three events all seem to be part of the same one fact, so the
singular sounds more natural. If "facts" had been used, the three
individual events would have to be separated out somehow e.g. by labelling
them (a), (b) and (c): this is acceptable in writing but not for something
spoken in court.
--
ξ: ) Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

Glenn Knickerbocker

unread,

Jun 27, 2012, 3:01:07 PM6/27/12

to

On 6/27/2012 2:29 PM, Bob Bridges wrote:
> "The fact that the defendant admits that he saw John, asked John for a
> ride, and was later seen with John's walllet should give the jury more
> than enough ground for convicting the defendant of the murder."

There's only one fact here: the fact of his admission. Whether he
actually did all those other things might be separate facts.

ŹR

Unknown

unread,

Jun 27, 2012, 3:08:07 PM6/27/12

to

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:44:33 +0100, Curlytop
<pvstownse...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>To me the three events all seem to be part of the same one fact,

Not if you consider that the AHD' synonymizes "fact" and "event;"
ergo, three events = three facts.

>singular sounds more natural. If "facts" had been used, the three
>individual events would have to be separated out somehow e.g. by labelling
>them (a), (b) and (c): this is acceptable in writing but not for something
>spoken in court.

Even if when the facts are enumerated in writing, however, imo, the
sentence should still be:

"The fact that the defendant (1) admits that he saw John, (2) asked
John for a ride, and (3) was later seen with John's walllet should

give the jury more than enough ground for convicting the defendant of
the murder."

OTOH, if one restructures the sentence in the following way, "facts"
is definitely better:

"The following facts should give the jury more than enough ground for
convicting the defendant of the murder:

(1) The defendant admits that he saw John,
(2) The defendant admits that he asked John for a ride, and
(3) The defendant was later seen with John's walllet"

Maybe this works because the facts are seperated out by repeating the
subject and verb, rather that combined in one sentence?

Bob

Unknown

unread,

Jun 27, 2012, 3:11:40 PM6/27/12

to

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:01:07 -0400, Glenn Knickerbocker
<No...@bestweb.net> wrote:

>On 6/27/2012 2:29 PM, Bob Bridges wrote:
>> "The fact that the defendant admits that he saw John, asked John for a
>> ride, and was later seen with John's walllet should give the jury more
>> than enough ground for convicting the defendant of the murder."
>
>There's only one fact here: the fact of his admission.

Not really! That he was seen with John's wallet is also a fact,
particuarly becaue a camera recorded it:-)

Bob

Pablo

unread,

Jun 27, 2012, 3:25:30 PM6/27/12

to

escribió:

The fact is that he did all those things.

--
Pablo

Glenn Knickerbocker

unread,

Jun 27, 2012, 4:02:46 PM6/27/12

to

On 6/27/2012 3:11 PM, Bob Bridges wrote:
> Not really! That he was seen with John's wallet is also a fact,
> particuarly becaue a camera recorded it:-)

As I said, that might be a separate fact--but the sentence, as written,
doesn't refer to it.

¬R

Ian Jackson

unread,

Jun 27, 2012, 5:17:05 PM6/27/12

to

In message <nflmu7d81pkbv2g2u...@4ax.com>, Bob Bridges
<?@?.?.invalid> writes

>On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:44:33 +0100, Curlytop
><pvstownse...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>To me the three events all seem to be part of the same one fact,
>
>Not if you consider that the AHD' synonymizes "fact" and "event;"
>ergo, three events = three facts.
>
>>singular sounds more natural. If "facts" had been used, the three
>>individual events would have to be separated out somehow e.g. by labelling
>>them (a), (b) and (c): this is acceptable in writing but not for something
>>spoken in court.
>
>Even if when the facts are enumerated in writing, however, imo, the
>sentence should still be:
>
>"The fact that the defendant (1) admits that he saw John, (2) asked
>John for a ride, and (3) was later seen with John's walllet should
>give the jury more than enough ground for convicting the defendant of
>the murder."
>
>OTOH, if one restructures the sentence in the following way, "facts"
>is definitely better:
>
>"The following facts should give the jury more than enough ground for
>convicting the defendant of the murder:
>
>(1) The defendant admits that he saw John,
>(2) The defendant admits that he asked John for a ride, and
>(3) The defendant was later seen with John's walllet"
>
>Maybe this works because the facts are seperated out by repeating the
>subject and verb, rather that combined in one sentence?
>

Indeed, there are three separate facts, and without the rather unnatural
itemization, the sentence would be:

"The fact that the defendant admits that he saw John, (the fact) that he
asked
John for a ride, and (the fact) that he was later seen with John's
wallet should give the jury more than enough ground for convicting the
defendant of the murder."

However, the repetition of "the fact" is rather tedious. The omission of
the second and third "the fact" does not detract from the clarity of the
sentence, and helps it flow more smoothly and naturally.

>>
>

--
ian

Don Phillipson

unread,

Jun 27, 2012, 5:35:21 PM6/27/12

to

<Bob Bridges> wrote in message
news:nflmu7d81pkbv2g2u...@4ax.com...

> I often wonder whether to use "fact" or "facts" in the following kind
> of sentence:
>
> "The fact that the defendant admits that he saw John, asked John for a
> ride, and was later seen with John's walllet should give the jury more
> than enough ground for convicting the defendant of the murder."
>
> I recognized that the sentence contains more than one fact, but using
> "facts" here just doesn't sound right to me.
> So I was wondering what the grammarians here thought?

> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:44:33 +0100, Curlytop
> <pvstownse...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>To me the three events all seem to be part of the same one fact,

> Not if you consider that the AHD' synonymizes "fact" and "event;"
> ergo, three events = three facts.
>
>>singular sounds more natural. If "facts" had been used, the three
>>individual events would have to be separated out somehow e.g. by labelling
>>them (a), (b) and (c): this is acceptable in writing but not for something
>>spoken in court.
>
> Even if when the facts are enumerated in writing, however, imo, the
> sentence should still be:
>
> "The fact that the defendant (1) admits that he saw John, (2) asked
> John for a ride, and (3) was later seen with John's walllet should
> give the jury more than enough ground for convicting the defendant of
> the murder."

This riposte exposes that "kind of sentence" may be a bogus
category, and we may doubt the OP truly "often wonders" about it.

Grammar has nothing to do with the case. The specimen
sentence is inverted, so far as it says simply:
"The fact . . . should give the jury more than enough . . ."
with three concatenated subordinate clauses inserted before
the main verb. The specimen is grammatically correct, but
is poor style, mainly because of the apprehension it raises
in a reader's mind concerning "fact" or "facts." Any sentence
of complex structure that directs attention away from its meaning
and towards its own style is bad style -- unless, of course, it is
not a real sentence, but concocted for purposes of debate,
in which case it is bogus bad style.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Mike L

unread,

Jun 27, 2012, 6:00:56 PM6/27/12

to

The expression "the fact that" is ugly, and I feel should be used
extremely sparingly. In this case, "That the defendant admits..." is
enough; and "The defendant's admission that..." works even better.

--
Mike.

Stan Brown

unread,

Jun 27, 2012, 11:47:31 PM6/27/12

to

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:29:16 -0400, Bob Bridges <> wrote:
>
> I often wonder whether to use "fact" or "facts" in the following kind
> of sentence:
>
> "The fact that the defendant admits that he saw John, asked John for a
> ride, and was later seen with John's walllet should give the jury more
> than enough ground for convicting the defendant of the murder."
>
> I recognized that the sentence contains more than one fact, but using
> "facts" here just doesn't sound right to me.
>
> So I was wondering what the grammarians here thought?

There is only one "fact" here: the defendant's admission. He admits
three things, but it's one admission.

But I think style is more important here than grammar. (BTW, did
your know your Shift key is broken? Or was "john" the defendant's
client in a for-money sexual liaison, in which case it must be "the
john"?)

The defendant admits that he saw John, asked John for a ride, and was
later seen with John's wallet. That (not "those") should give the
jury more than enough reason to convict him of the murder.

--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com

Ian Jackson

unread,

Jun 28, 2012, 3:10:41 AM6/28/12

to

In message <ja0nu7hn6pk1i3044...@4ax.com>, Mike L
<n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes

Ugly? I wouldn't really say so. It's a fairly normal and unobtrusive
expression - maybe added to give a bit of emphasis. However, if you're
hell-bent on a minimum word count, yes, it can be eliminated.
--
Ian

Ian Noble

unread,

Jun 28, 2012, 3:32:46 AM6/28/12

to

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:29:16 -0400, Bob Bridges <> wrote:

>

>I often wonder whether to use "fact" or "facts" in the following kind
>of sentence:
>
>"The fact that the defendant admits that he saw John, asked John for a
>ride, and was later seen with John's walllet should give the jury more
>than enough ground for convicting the defendant of the murder."
>
>I recognized that the sentence contains more than one fact, but using
>"facts" here just doesn't sound right to me.
>

(I'm not a grammarian - I hold grammar to be at best a useful,
rule-of-thumb tool - but I'm going to stick my oar in anyway, because
I think there's an interesting answer here.)

"Facts" sounds fine (and better) to me. I'd argue that neither
singular nor plural is incorrect, though; there's elided content in
the sentence, and without that content the question can't be
definitively answered.

Plural:
"The facts that the defendant admits that he saw John, (that the
defendant) asked John for a
ride, and (that the defendant) was later seen with John's walllet..."

but

Singular:
"The fact that the defendant admits that he saw John, (the fact that
the defendant) asked John for a
ride, and (the fact that the defendant) was later seen with John's
walllet..."

The first is simpler and more likely the speaker's intent, so the
plural is probably grammatically more correct. I'd suggest that you're
more likely to hear the singular nowadays, though. I'd almost
certainly use it myself, unless I'd thought my words out carefully
ahead of time, for example.

Cheers - Ian
(BrE: Yorks., Hants.)

Ian Noble

unread,

Jun 28, 2012, 3:43:23 AM6/28/12

to

Agreed; whilst an admission of multiple facts would, in itself, be
only a single fact, the sentence can't unambiguously be construed that
way. As I've said in another post, the problem is elision (although
possibly not in the way I was thinking at the time).

We know that the defendant admits that he saw John.

Without more context, though, we don't know whether he also admits
that he asked john for a ride, or whether his asking for a ride was
established through other evidence. It's probably the former, but we
can't say that for sure.

Similarly his later being seen with John's wallet - does he admit
this, or was it established through other means? Probably the latter,
but again we can't say that for sure.

Depending on the answer to those questions, there may be one, two or
even three facts. Two seems most likely, but who knows?

Ian Noble

unread,

Jun 28, 2012, 3:54:24 AM6/28/12

to

Ignoring the camera joke... in context of the OP's question that's
circular logic, Glenn. "If fact is in the singular, the sentence only
has one fact, so fact must be in the singular". And if we assume the
sentence to be wholely grammatically correct as it stands, I'd agree
with you.

But the OP's question was as to whether or not "fact" definitely ought
to be in the singular or plural - a stronger conclusion - and that
can't be infered from the rest of the sentence, because the nuanced
meaning is unclear in the absence of context.

Unknown

unread,

Jun 28, 2012, 5:48:19 AM6/28/12

to

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:35:21 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
<e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:

>This riposte exposes that "kind of sentence" may be a bogus
>category, and we may doubt the OP truly "often wonders" about it.

Say what??

>
>Grammar has nothing to do with the case. The specimen
>sentence is inverted, so far as it says simply:
>"The fact . . . should give the jury more than enough . . ."
>with three concatenated subordinate clauses inserted before
>the main verb. The specimen is grammatically correct, but
>is poor style, mainly because of the apprehension it raises
>in a reader's mind concerning "fact" or "facts." Any sentence
>of complex structure that directs attention away from its meaning
>and towards its own style is bad style -- unless, of course, it is
>not a real sentence, but concocted for purposes of debate,
>in which case it is bogus bad style.

Heh?? I suggest that, instead of impuning my sincerity and my motive
for posting my question, you ask yourself what distinguishes a "real
sentence" from a "concocted" sentence, considering that (a) "to
concoct" means "to devise using skill and intelligece" and (b)
sentences, by their very nature, are devised, consciously or
unconsciously, using a number of skills and a degree of intelligence,
which admittedly may vary from person to person.

In addition, I suggest that you ask yourself whether or not this
newsgroup was established to invite people to debate the pro's and
con's of sentences that a person may or may not have concocted
specifically for that reason.

Consequently, although the sentence I presented did "in fact" raise
the style issues you mentioned, I suggest that in the future you stick
to addressing such issues, rather than impuning the motives and
sincerity of the people who raise them.

Bob

CDB

unread,

Jun 28, 2012, 8:08:24 AM6/28/12

to

On Jun 28, 5:48 am, Bob Bridges <> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:35:21 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
>

This is the English department: "impugn"(twice), "pros and cons",
frex. Pugnacity is three doors down the corridor.

ObSession: I have been considering adding "-ug" to the list of
strange links among monosyllables ending in "-unk", "-unch" "-ump",
and "-unt. Consider "punch, punk, pug", "lunk, lug", "hump, hunch,
hug", "mumps, mug", "chunter, chug".

Glenn Knickerbocker

unread,

Jun 28, 2012, 11:06:02 AM6/28/12

to

On 6/28/2012 3:54 AM, Ian Noble wrote:
> Ignoring the camera joke... in context of the OP's question that's
> circular logic, Glenn. "If fact is in the singular, the sentence only
> has one fact, so fact must be in the singular".

It has nothing to do with the form of the word "fact." The appositive
to that word is a single noun clause. The object of the verb in that
noun clause is a single noun clause--and not even a compound clause,
just a simple clause with a compound predicate. The defendant did one
thing: admit. He admitted to one thing: doing all the stuff in the
inner noun clause. It's all one fact.

If you want to say that the three actions in the inner noun clause are
separate facts, fine--but the sentence doesn't assert them as fact. It
only says that the defendant admits to them.

ŹR

Glenn Knickerbocker

unread,

Jun 28, 2012, 11:10:10 AM6/28/12

to

On 6/28/2012 3:32 AM, Ian Noble wrote:
> The first is simpler and more likely the speaker's intent,

Come on, when have you ever known a lawyer to intend to say something
simple simply, never mind actually do so?

ŹR

Don Phillipson

unread,

Jun 28, 2012, 12:19:59 PM6/28/12

to

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:35:21 -0400, "Don Phillipson" posted:

> . . . Any sentence

>>of complex structure that directs attention away from its meaning
>>and towards its own style is bad style -- unless, of course, it is
>>not a real sentence, but concocted for purposes of debate,
>>in which case it is bogus bad style.

<Bob Bridges> wrote in message

news:gi7ou7l9h87hnbanq...@4ax.com...

> Heh?? I suggest that, instead of impuning my sincerity and my motive
> for posting my question, you ask yourself what distinguishes a "real

> sentence" from a "concocted" sentence . . .

We agree beforehand that meaning in English sometimes derives
from context. Thus we can classify English sentences as either
real = quoted from actual usage, whether speech or writing, or
concocted = composed for purposes other than functional use.
The most abundant class of concocted sentences is those
prepared by authors of grammar or language manuals, for
didactic purposes. Their examples are context-free: e.g.
the words may mention jet engines or law courts, but the
sentences were concocted, not really used by people actually
discussing jet engines or proceedings at law.

When people later seek to establish meaning, we should
not be surprised that context usually establishes the finite
meaning of real sentences -- but argument about context-free
concocted sentences commonly goes on indefinitely.

Mike L

unread,

Jun 28, 2012, 4:14:58 PM6/28/12

to

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:10:41 +0100, Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <ja0nu7hn6pk1i3044...@4ax.com>, Mike L
><n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes

[...]

>>
>>The expression "the fact that" is ugly, and I feel should be used
>>extremely sparingly. In this case, "That the defendant admits..." is
>>enough; and "The defendant's admission that..." works even better.
>>
>Ugly? I wouldn't really say so. It's a fairly normal and unobtrusive
>expression - maybe added to give a bit of emphasis. However, if you're
>hell-bent on a minimum word count, yes, it can be eliminated.

It's certainly normal, in the sense of " very often used"; but I do
find it obtrusive. It's not a matter of word count, but that it adds a
layer of abstraction: and "the fact" doesn't provide more information
than one of the more direct forms. I'm not suggesting that verse
should be the yardstick for prose, but it may be revealing to try to
imagine a good poet using the expression - I don't find that easy.

--
Mike.

Peter Moylan

unread,

Jun 29, 2012, 3:12:51 AM6/29/12

to

Bob Bridges wrote:

> In addition, I suggest that you ask yourself whether or not this
> newsgroup was established to invite people to debate the pro's and
> con's of sentences that a person may or may not have concocted
> specifically for that reason.

Don't joke about it. I can think of one person who seems to think that
it was established for that purpose.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

jasa website

unread,

Jun 27, 2021, 5:15:32 AM6/27/21

to