Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
there are/ there is
6 views
Skip to first unread message
navi
Feb 2, 2012, 11:47:22 PM2/2/12
to
Which is correct:
1-There are an old man and woman living across the street from us.
2-There is an old man and woman living across the street from us.
Gratefully,
Navi.
1-There are an old man and woman living across the street from us.
2-There is an old man and woman living across the street from us.
Gratefully,
Navi.
Harrison Hill
Feb 3, 2012, 2:06:07 AM2/3/12
to
the street from us", and the nuance (if any) is on their closeness as
a couple.
Eric Walker
Feb 7, 2012, 7:00:10 AM2/7/12
to
On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:47:22 -0800, navi wrote:
> Which is correct:
>
> 1-There are an old man and woman living across the street from us.
> 2-There is an old man and woman living across the street from us.
This can be tricky, owing to idiom. Normally, when referring to a
> Which is correct:
>
> 1-There are an old man and woman living across the street from us.
> 2-There is an old man and woman living across the street from us.
compound--and thus grammatically plural--subject, one would naturally use
the plural form of the verb:
In the room were an armchair, a small table, a couch, and a floor lamp."
But sometimes idiom considers some joint subjects to be a conceptual
singular:
"On the table was a cup and saucer."
"Waiting at the door was a horse and carriage."
Very occasionally, context will suggest, and allow, that some combination
not a natural or normal idiom might in the particular sentence be an ad
hoc unity, but that is a tricky subtlety.
In the example provided, it wants to be plural, just as it seems.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Don Phillipson
Feb 7, 2012, 12:05:20 PM2/7/12
to
> On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:47:22 -0800, navi wrote:
>
>> Which is correct:
>>
>> 1-There are an old man and woman living across the street from us.
>> 2-There is an old man and woman living across the street from us.
We have often encountered two quite different questions:
>
>> Which is correct:
>>
>> 1-There are an old man and woman living across the street from us.
>> 2-There is an old man and woman living across the street from us.
A = Which of these two versions is correct?
B = What is the best way to write this?
In today's case neither version is incorrect: but the
sentence would be written better and more clearly:
"An old man and woman are living across the street from us."
The case demonstrates Question B is more helpful.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Donna Richoux
Feb 7, 2012, 3:01:59 PM2/7/12
to
Don Phillipson <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
> In today's case neither version is incorrect: but the
> sentence would be written better and more clearly:
> "An old man and woman are living across the street from us."
Or
> In today's case neither version is incorrect: but the
> sentence would be written better and more clearly:
> "An old man and woman are living across the street from us."
"An old man and woman live across the street from us."
I defy anyone to find even a shade of difference of meaning. it doesn't
matter how long they've been there or how much of the time they are
there.
I may be more aware of the growing tendency to (over)use "-ing" because
I'm outside North America. You guys are in the middle of it.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
JOF
Feb 7, 2012, 4:20:59 PM2/7/12
to
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 21:01:59 +0100, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
wrote:
To me, there's a small shade of difference. "Live" is timeless, sort
of eternal present. "Are living" leaves open the possibility of
impermanence, without implying it.
--
John
wrote:
of eternal present. "Are living" leaves open the possibility of
impermanence, without implying it.
--
John
Robert Bannister
Feb 7, 2012, 11:03:51 PM2/7/12
to
that they lived in separate houses, while singular suggests
cohabitation. Let's not get onto "There're" and "There's" - I know the
latter wins hands down.
--
Robert Bannister
Donna Richoux
Feb 8, 2012, 4:15:30 PM2/8/12
to
"I stay in a hotel whenever I can/I am staying in a hotel." But I was
considering strictly the two sentences:
"An old man and woman live across the street from us."
"An old man and woman are living across the street from us."
Do you think a speaker of today is seriously trying to convey by the
second one that he doesn't know how long the elderly couple have been
there and they might not be there much longer?
Or does he really just mean that their home is across the street? That's
what I see happening, more and more.
It's a tricky point to explain. All that significance about impermanence
only works if there is another form, the timeless one. If people use
"-ing" all the time, the distinction is lost.
I think the use of "-ing" where it didn't used to be some sort of modern
habit (like "to my husband and I" is a modern habit) and is said because
it sounds right. People echo each other, and that's how language
changes.
I'm not trying to stop the tide, nor am I very upset that the tide is
changing, but I want people to *notice*.
Anyway, in this case, the original question was about "There is an old
man and woman living across the street from us." The word "living"
probably just persisted from that.
Mark Brader
Feb 8, 2012, 4:31:13 PM2/8/12
to
Donna Richoux:
John O.F.:
> Do you think a speaker of today is seriously trying to convey by the
> second one that he doesn't know how long the elderly couple have been
> there and they might not be there much longer?
No, but he's more likely to *use* the second one if he doesn't know and
they might not. That's exactly the "shade of difference" you asked for.
> It's a tricky point to explain. All that significance about impermanence
> only works if there is another form, the timeless one. If people use
> "-ing" all the time, the distinction is lost.
True. But in this particular case, it may be because people are moving
(tense deliberately chosen) more often nowadays than they used to.
--
Mark Brader | No programming language is Perfect. Perl comes very close.
m...@vex.net | P! e! r! *l?* :-( Not quite "Perfect".
Toronto | -- Brian Ingerson
My text in this article is in the public domain.
>>> Or "An old man and woman live across the street from us."
>>> I defy anyone to find even a shade of difference of meaning...
John O.F.:
>> To me, there's a small shade of difference. "Live" is timeless, sort
>> of eternal present. "Are living" leaves open the possibility of
>> impermanence, without implying it.
Donna Richoux:
>> of eternal present. "Are living" leaves open the possibility of
>> impermanence, without implying it.
> That's the general difference in the verb form, yes. It fits fine with
> "I stay in a hotel whenever I can/I am staying in a hotel." But I was
> considering strictly the two sentences:
>
> "An old man and woman live across the street from us."
> "An old man and woman are living across the street from us."
So? John is right. For those two sentences.
> "I stay in a hotel whenever I can/I am staying in a hotel." But I was
> considering strictly the two sentences:
>
> "An old man and woman live across the street from us."
> "An old man and woman are living across the street from us."
> Do you think a speaker of today is seriously trying to convey by the
> second one that he doesn't know how long the elderly couple have been
> there and they might not be there much longer?
they might not. That's exactly the "shade of difference" you asked for.
> It's a tricky point to explain. All that significance about impermanence
> only works if there is another form, the timeless one. If people use
> "-ing" all the time, the distinction is lost.
(tense deliberately chosen) more often nowadays than they used to.
--
Mark Brader | No programming language is Perfect. Perl comes very close.
m...@vex.net | P! e! r! *l?* :-( Not quite "Perfect".
Toronto | -- Brian Ingerson
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Mike Lyle
Feb 8, 2012, 5:32:17 PM2/8/12
to
"stay" for permanent dwelling, while we use it in the simple present
for habitual overnight visiting, and in the continuous for temporary
residence.
Navel-gazing leads me to wonder if the Indian use may be a fossil from
Empire, when the Anglo-Celtic occupiers rarely saw themselves as
permanent residents.
--
Mike.
Eric Walker
Feb 8, 2012, 5:54:28 PM2/8/12
to
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:15:30 +0100, Donna Richoux wrote:
[...]
> "An old man and woman live across the street from us."
> "An old man and woman are living across the street from us."
>
> Do you think a speaker of today is seriously trying to convey by the
> second one that he doesn't know how long the elderly couple have been
> there and they might not be there much longer?
It depends on whether that speaker can be assumed to have a knowledge of
basic English. The two forms use each a different tense, and those
tenses have well-established meanings.
The present tense, used in the first, may mean something that is
happening at the instant, but is also the form used to express a general
or universal truth ("The world is round.")
The present perfect tense, used in the second, "is often used to indicate
that an action or a state that has begun in the past is still
continuing." (Curme)
So the second simply states the fact that the couple has been and
continue to be in residence there, whereas the first, by implying
generality or universality, conveys the sense that their residence is a
permanent, established fact of the universe--that is, that everyone takes
it as something that was, is, and (the crux) will be. The second carries
no such sense of implied permanence.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
[...]
> "An old man and woman live across the street from us."
> "An old man and woman are living across the street from us."
>
> Do you think a speaker of today is seriously trying to convey by the
> second one that he doesn't know how long the elderly couple have been
> there and they might not be there much longer?
basic English. The two forms use each a different tense, and those
tenses have well-established meanings.
The present tense, used in the first, may mean something that is
happening at the instant, but is also the form used to express a general
or universal truth ("The world is round.")
The present perfect tense, used in the second, "is often used to indicate
that an action or a state that has begun in the past is still
continuing." (Curme)
So the second simply states the fact that the couple has been and
continue to be in residence there, whereas the first, by implying
generality or universality, conveys the sense that their residence is a
permanent, established fact of the universe--that is, that everyone takes
it as something that was, is, and (the crux) will be. The second carries
no such sense of implied permanence.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Feb 8, 2012, 5:57:43 PM2/8/12
to
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:32:17 +0000, Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:20:59 -0600, JOF <qu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 21:01:59 +0100, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Don Phillipson <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In today's case neither version is incorrect: but the
>>>> sentence would be written better and more clearly:
>>>> "An old man and woman are living across the street from us."
>>>
>>>Or
>>>
>>>"An old man and woman live across the street from us."
>>>
>>>I defy anyone to find even a shade of difference of meaning. it doesn't
>>>matter how long they've been there or how much of the time they are
>>>there.
>>>
>>>I may be more aware of the growing tendency to (over)use "-ing" because
>>>I'm outside North America. You guys are in the middle of it.
>>
>>To me, there's a small shade of difference. "Live" is timeless, sort
>>of eternal present. "Are living" leaves open the possibility of
>>impermanence, without implying it.
>
>Agreed. See also "stay": we've seen here that Indian English uses
>"stay" for permanent dwelling,
I think I've heard it in the permanent dwelling sense in Scottish
English. I assume that the spelling was "stay". This English to Scots
dictionary gives:
http://www.scots-online.org/dictionary/search.asp
stey [st?i]
v. To stay, to remain, tarry. To dwell, reside permanently, to make
one's home.
pt. pp. steyed
Note: "Scots" is not "Scottish English". It is related to English. It is
also know as "Lallans".
> while we use it in the simple present
>for habitual overnight visiting, and in the continuous for temporary
>residence.
>
>Navel-gazing leads me to wonder if the Indian use may be a fossil from
>Empire, when the Anglo-Celtic occupiers rarely saw themselves as
>permanent residents.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:20:59 -0600, JOF <qu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 21:01:59 +0100, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Don Phillipson <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In today's case neither version is incorrect: but the
>>>> sentence would be written better and more clearly:
>>>> "An old man and woman are living across the street from us."
>>>
>>>Or
>>>
>>>"An old man and woman live across the street from us."
>>>
>>>I defy anyone to find even a shade of difference of meaning. it doesn't
>>>matter how long they've been there or how much of the time they are
>>>there.
>>>
>>>I may be more aware of the growing tendency to (over)use "-ing" because
>>>I'm outside North America. You guys are in the middle of it.
>>
>>To me, there's a small shade of difference. "Live" is timeless, sort
>>of eternal present. "Are living" leaves open the possibility of
>>impermanence, without implying it.
>
>Agreed. See also "stay": we've seen here that Indian English uses
>"stay" for permanent dwelling,
English. I assume that the spelling was "stay". This English to Scots
dictionary gives:
http://www.scots-online.org/dictionary/search.asp
stey [st?i]
v. To stay, to remain, tarry. To dwell, reside permanently, to make
one's home.
pt. pp. steyed
Note: "Scots" is not "Scottish English". It is related to English. It is
also know as "Lallans".
> while we use it in the simple present
>for habitual overnight visiting, and in the continuous for temporary
>residence.
>
>Navel-gazing leads me to wonder if the Indian use may be a fossil from
>Empire, when the Anglo-Celtic occupiers rarely saw themselves as
>permanent residents.
--
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Moylan
Feb 8, 2012, 6:47:38 PM2/8/12
to
is because of Indian migration.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
JOF
Feb 8, 2012, 10:09:59 PM2/8/12
to
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 22:15:30 +0100, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
No, I agree. As I said, the second form "doesn't imply". But the first
form is timeless, and that's at least a shade of difference. If I
imagine a child talking about the only neighbors they've known, I
imagine them using the word "live". But, maybe that's because I'm not
in close contact with current everyday speech.
>Or does he really just mean that their home is across the street? That's
>what I see happening, more and more.
>
>It's a tricky point to explain. All that significance about impermanence
>only works if there is another form, the timeless one. If people use
>"-ing" all the time, the distinction is lost.
>
>I think the use of "-ing" where it didn't used to be some sort of modern
>habit (like "to my husband and I" is a modern habit) and is said because
>it sounds right. People echo each other, and that's how language
>changes.
>
>I'm not trying to stop the tide, nor am I very upset that the tide is
>changing, but I want people to *notice*.
--
John
form is timeless, and that's at least a shade of difference. If I
imagine a child talking about the only neighbors they've known, I
imagine them using the word "live". But, maybe that's because I'm not
in close contact with current everyday speech.
>Or does he really just mean that their home is across the street? That's
>what I see happening, more and more.
>
>It's a tricky point to explain. All that significance about impermanence
>only works if there is another form, the timeless one. If people use
>"-ing" all the time, the distinction is lost.
>
>I think the use of "-ing" where it didn't used to be some sort of modern
>habit (like "to my husband and I" is a modern habit) and is said because
>it sounds right. People echo each other, and that's how language
>changes.
>
>I'm not trying to stop the tide, nor am I very upset that the tide is
>changing, but I want people to *notice*.
John
Mike Lyle
Feb 9, 2012, 6:47:01 PM2/9/12
to
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:47:38 +1100, Peter Moylan
<inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>Donna Richoux wrote:
>> Don Phillipson <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> In today's case neither version is incorrect: but the
>>> sentence would be written better and more clearly:
>>> "An old man and woman are living across the street from us."
>>
>> Or
>>
>> "An old man and woman live across the street from us."
>>
>> I defy anyone to find even a shade of difference of meaning. it doesn't
>> matter how long they've been there or how much of the time they are
>> there.
>>
>> I may be more aware of the growing tendency to (over)use "-ing" because
>> I'm outside North America. You guys are in the middle of it.
>>
>No, India is being in the middle of it. Perhaps the North American trend
>is because of Indian migration.
If you are telling that we are slaying English language, then we shall
<inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>Donna Richoux wrote:
>> Don Phillipson <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> In today's case neither version is incorrect: but the
>>> sentence would be written better and more clearly:
>>> "An old man and woman are living across the street from us."
>>
>> Or
>>
>> "An old man and woman live across the street from us."
>>
>> I defy anyone to find even a shade of difference of meaning. it doesn't
>> matter how long they've been there or how much of the time they are
>> there.
>>
>> I may be more aware of the growing tendency to (over)use "-ing" because
>> I'm outside North America. You guys are in the middle of it.
>>
>No, India is being in the middle of it. Perhaps the North American trend
>is because of Indian migration.
be kicking your bottom out of door.
--
Mike.
Dr Nick
Feb 10, 2012, 3:13:30 PM2/10/12
to
you live".
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
tony cooper
Feb 10, 2012, 6:04:35 PM2/10/12
to
on 14th Street" instead of "I live over on 14th Street".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Skitt
Feb 10, 2012, 7:13:00 PM2/10/12
to
tony cooper wrote:
> Dr Nick wrote:
>> "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" writes:
>>> Mike Lyle wrote:
Staying usually suggests a temporary residence. One stays in a hotel,
or with a friend.
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
> Dr Nick wrote:
>> "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" writes:
>>> Mike Lyle wrote:
>>>> JOF wrote:
>>>>> (Donna Richoux) wrote:
>>>>> (Donna Richoux) wrote:
or with a friend.
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
tony cooper
Feb 10, 2012, 9:16:50 PM2/10/12
to
their residence temporary. They could live in one place for 30 years
and still use "staying".
Dr Nick
Feb 12, 2012, 11:25:11 AM2/12/12
to
like mainstream BrE and AmE are the odd ones out.
0 new messages