"A good example are the..."
M Winther
(2) "A good example is the cars in a racing game."
The above sentences are from Internet texts. To me, (1) apperas wrong
while (2) is correct. (2) is correct because "a good example" is
singularis and therefore requires an "is".
(1) could be reformulated: "The rulers of Jordan and Libya is a good
example." But we don't say: "The rulers of Jordan and Libya are a
good example." Therefore it must be concluded that (1) is wrong and
(2) is correct. No?
However, what baffles me is that the (1) type of formulation is
ubiquitous on the Internet.
Mats Winther
Mark Brader
> (1) "A good example are the rulers of Jordan and Libya."
> (2) "A good example is the cars in a racing game."
> The above sentences are from Internet texts. To me, (1) apperas wrong
> while (2) is correct.
You're right.
> (1) could be reformulated: "The rulers of Jordan and Libya is a good
> example."
That would be wrong -- it should be "are".
> But we don't say: "The rulers of Jordan and Libya are a good example."
Yes, we do. The verb agrees in number with the subject.
There are some situations in English where the number of the subject
may not be obvious.
(3) Ham and cheese is my favorite combination of foods.
(4) Ham and cheese are two of my favorite foods.
In this case it may seem as though the verb is agreeing with "combination"
in 3, but with "two" in 4. But it isn't. It's agreeing with "ham and
cheese" in both sentences, but that sequence of words forms a singular
in one sense and a plural in another.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | The plural of "virus" is "ad nauseam".
m...@vex.net | --Fred Bambrough
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Peter Moylan
> Mats Winther:
>> But we don't say: "The rulers of Jordan and Libya are a good example."
>
> Yes, we do. The verb agrees in number with the subject.
But then we have to say "... are good examples."
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Harrison Hill
> (1) "A good example are the rulers of Jordan and Libya."
>
> (2) "A good example is the cars in a racing game."
>
> The above sentences are from Internet texts. To me, (1) apperas wrong
> while (2) is correct. (2) is correct because "a good example" is
> singularis and therefore requires an "is".
>
> (1) could be reformulated: "The rulers of Jordan and Libya is a good
> example." But we don't say: "The rulers of Jordan and Libya are a
> good example."
"The rulers of Jordan and Libya are a good example." is wrong in what
way?
Stephen
> Mark Brader wrote:
>> Mats Winther:
>
>>> But we don't say: "The rulers of Jordan and Libya are a good example."
>>
>> Yes, we do. The verb agrees in number with the subject.
>
> But then we have to say "... are good examples."
>
Depends what they're an example or examples of. They might be a good
example of co-operation, or of rulers with common goals.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Harrison Hill
Peter Moylan says:
But then we have to say "... are good examples."
This is a plural atop a plural, so I don't think your rule
neccessarily applies. We can say "Some groups in the crowd are a good
example of how not to behave", and "are good examples" doesn't work,
because there is only one "example".
M Winther
Because it should be: "The rulers of Jordan and Libya are good
examples."
Or it should be: "The rulers of Jordan and Libya is a good example."
But I maintain that "The rulers of Jordan and Libya are a good
example" is wrong.
Mats
M Winther
> Mats Winther:
>
> > (1) "A good example are the rulers of Jordan and Libya."
> > (2) "A good example is the cars in a racing game."
> > The above sentences are from Internet texts. To me, (1) apperas wrong
> > while (2) is correct.
>
> You're right.
>
> > (1) could be reformulated: "The rulers of Jordan and Libya is a good
> > example."
>
> That would be wrong -- it should be "are".
>
> > But we don't say: "The rulers of Jordan and Libya are a good example."
>
> Yes, we do. The verb agrees in number with the subject.
>
How come "A good example is the cars in a racing game." is correct,
then?
Surely, "The rulers of Jordan and Libya is a good example" must be the
correct expression. The subject is still "example". It is singularis.
It doesn't matter that the words come in different order.
Mats
Stan Brown
>
> (1) "A good example are the rulers of Jordan and Libya."
>
Wrong. Verbs agree in number with their subjects. The verb must be
"is". If the disagreement with the predicate nominative "rulers"
seems awkward, the remedy is to write the sentence: "The rulers of J
and L are a good example." But *are* they one example? It seems to
me that each of them is an example, so that you would write "The
rulers of J and L are good examples".
> (2) "A good example is the cars in a racing game."
>
> The above sentences are from Internet texts. To me, (1) apperas wrong
> while (2) is correct. (2) is correct because "a good example" is
> singularis and therefore requires an "is".
Right. ("Singular", not "singularis".)
> (1) could be reformulated: "The rulers of Jordan and Libya is a good
> example." But we don't say: "The rulers of Jordan and Libya are a
> good example."
No. The rulers are (not "is") a good example.
> However, what baffles me is that the (1) type of formulation is
> ubiquitous on the Internet.
There is no reason to be baffled. A great many speakers of *any*
language make mistakes. A great many people do not proofread their
work, so that even when they know better they may have very basic
mistakes in their writing. (Even among those who do proofread, it is
hard to proofread a on screen, and also hard to proofread one's own
work.)
--
"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
Peter Moylan
> (Even among those who do proofread, it is
> hard to proofread a on screen, and also hard to proofread one's own
> work.)
>
Has there been any research done on this? It certainly agrees with my
own experience. If something I have written needs to be of high quality,
for example if it is for external publication, then I have found that I
need to print out a copy, and proofread the printed copy. I don't
achieve as high a quality if I merely proofread on-screen.
Leslie Danks
> Stan Brown wrote:
>
>> (Even among those who do proofread, it is
>> hard to proofread a on screen, and also hard to proofread one's own
>> work.)
>>
> Has there been any research done on this? It certainly agrees with my
> own experience. If something I have written needs to be of high quality,
> for example if it is for external publication, then I have found that I
> need to print out a copy, and proofread the printed copy. I don't
> achieve as high a quality if I merely proofread on-screen.
Me too. I always print out the first draft of a translation in order to
compare it with the original and correct errors of omission and commission,
and then I print out the corrected version for a final polish. It's a good
idea to do the final read-through no sooner than the following day (deadline
permitting) so that errors burned into the brain and no longer recognised as
errors have at least partly faded.
--
Les
(BrE)
James Hogg
I could have written exactly those words.
--
James
M Winther
"Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> skrev i meddelandet
news:MPG.2868fb196...@news.individual.net...
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:40:21 +0200, M Winther wrote:
>>
>> (1) "A good example are the rulers of Jordan and Libya."
>>
>
> Wrong. Verbs agree in number with their subjects. The verb must be
> "is". If the disagreement with the predicate nominative "rulers"
> seems awkward, the remedy is to write the sentence: "The rulers of J
> and L are a good example." But *are* they one example? It seems to
> me that each of them is an example, so that you would write "The
> rulers of J and L are good examples".
>
>> (2) "A good example is the cars in a racing game."
>>
>> The above sentences are from Internet texts. To me, (1) apperas
>> wrong
>> while (2) is correct. (2) is correct because "a good example" is
>> singularis and therefore requires an "is".
>
> Right. ("Singular", not "singularis".)
Singularis is latin. It is allowable to use, isn't it?
>
>> (1) could be reformulated: "The rulers of Jordan and Libya is a
>> good
>> example." But we don't say: "The rulers of Jordan and Libya are a
>> good example."
>
> No. The rulers are (not "is") a good example.
Of course, but it is confusing. In Swedish we don't differ between
singular and plural but always say "�r". So: he/she/it/they "�r"
(are). Why don't you reform your language similarly? American blacks
use to say: "They is."
Mats
Mark Brader
>>> But we don't say: "The rulers of Jordan and Libya are a good example."
Mark Brader:
>> Yes, we do. The verb agrees in number with the subject.
Mats Winther:
> How come "A good example is the cars in a racing game." is correct,
> then?
Because now "A good example" is the subject.
> Surely, "The rulers of Jordan and Libya is a good example" must be the
> correct expression. The subject is still "example".
Ah, that's where you're confused. The subject is "the rulers of Jordan
and Libya".
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "He seems unable to win without the added
m...@vex.net thrill of changing sides." -- Chess
Stan Brown
>
> "Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> skrev i meddelandet
> news:MPG.2868fb196...@news.individual.net...
>
> Singularis is latin. It is allowable to use, isn't it?
In the sense that you are free to post what you like, yes. But in
discussing English grammar, where an English term exists we tend to
use the English term rather than the Latin one. In talking about an
English sentence you would use "participle" and not "participium".
> >> (1) could be reformulated: "The rulers of Jordan and Libya is a
> >> good example." But we don't say: "The rulers of Jordan and Libya
> >> are a good example."
> >
> > No. The rulers are (not "is") a good example.
>
> Of course, but it is confusing. In Swedish we don't differ between
> singular and plural but always say "�r". So: he/she/it/they "�r"
> (are). Why don't you reform your language similarly?
We'll make our verbs numberless when you stop distinguishing between
genders of adjectives. :-0
> American blacks
> use to say: "They is."
"They be", I think.
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
>
> M Winther wrote:
>
>> American blacks use to say: "They is."
>
> "They be", I think.
>
different things.
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
annily
>
> There is no reason to be baffled. A great many speakers of *any*
> language make mistakes. A great many people do not proofread their
> work, so that even when they know better they may have very basic
> mistakes in their writing. (Even among those who do proofread, it is
> hard to proofread a on screen, and also hard to proofread one's own
> work.)
>
How many people spotted "proofread a on screen", instead of "proofread
on a screen"?
Perhaps a good example of what he said :)
--
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which probably influences my opinions.
Odysseus
Stephen <cald...@hotmail.com> wrote:
If they are really a single entity, I would prefer something like "...
make (for) a good example," or better yet, naming the entity itself:
"The co-operation between ... is a good example." Still, I wouldn't call
"... are a good example" wrong; where subject and complement disagree in
number -- which is allowed -- the verb should agree with the subject.
--
Odysseus
Stan Brown
>
> On 2011-06-20 21:07, Stan Brown wrote:
> >
> > There is no reason to be baffled. A great many speakers of *any*
> > language make mistakes. A great many people do not proofread their
> > work, so that even when they know better they may have very basic
> > mistakes in their writing. (Even among those who do proofread, it is
> > hard to proofread a on screen, and also hard to proofread one's own
> > work.)
> >
>
> How many people spotted "proofread a on screen", instead of "proofread
> on a screen"?
>
> Perhaps a good example of what he said :)
Yes, exactly! The eyes see what the brain expects to see, and so
it's quite hard to proofread one's own work. And reading *anything*
on screen is harder than reading it on paper. So proofreading one's
own stuff on screen is doubly difficult.
Robin Bignall
<inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>Stan Brown wrote:
>
>> (Even among those who do proofread, it is
>> hard to proofread a on screen, and also hard to proofread one's own
>> work.)
>>
>Has there been any research done on this? It certainly agrees with my
>own experience. If something I have written needs to be of high quality,
>for example if it is for external publication, then I have found that I
>need to print out a copy, and proofread the printed copy. I don't
>achieve as high a quality if I merely proofread on-screen.
Same for me. Any letter or document to someone outside the family is
printed out to be proofread by my wife before it's sent.
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England
Roland Hutchinson
As could I.
Young whippersnappers seem to be more comfortable with the idea of
proofreading on-screen, and although it would be invidious to suggest
that they are not the greatest proofreaders ever to have come down the
informations superpike, still I do believe that nothing, but nothing,
beats a double spaced typescript (a "hardcopy" in the current lingo) and
a blue pencil as a tool for proofing or copy editing.
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
Roland Hutchinson
> Stan Brown wrote:
>>
>> M Winther wrote:
>>
>>> American blacks use to say: "They is."
>>
>> "They be", I think.
>>
> Many Blacks use both "they is" and "they be," because they mean
> different things.
To say nothing of the null copula.
the Omrud
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:19:56 +0200, James Hogg wrote:
>
>> Leslie Danks wrote:
>>> Me too. I always print out the first draft of a translation in order to
>>> compare it with the original and correct errors of omission and
>>> commission, and then I print out the corrected version for a final
>>> polish. It's a good idea to do the final read-through no sooner than
>>> the following day (deadline permitting) so that errors burned into the
>>> brain and no longer recognised as errors have at least partly faded.
>>
>> I could have written exactly those words.
>
> As could I.
>
> Young whippersnappers seem to be more comfortable with the idea of
> proofreading on-screen, and although it would be invidious to suggest
> that they are not the greatest proofreaders ever to have come down the
> informations superpike, still I do believe that nothing, but nothing,
> beats a double spaced typescript (a "hardcopy" in the current lingo) and
> a blue pencil as a tool for proofing or copy editing.
Yep, although I use a red pen, and it's not really for proof reading,
but for design review. I print out the design, mark it up with the red
pen and then type my comments into the document.
--
David
annily
> Stan Brown wrote:
>>
>> M Winther wrote:
>>
>>> American blacks use to say: "They is."
>>
>> "They be", I think.
>>
> Many Blacks use both "they is" and "they be," because they mean
> different things.
>
What are the different meanings?
Donna Richoux
> On 2011-06-21 10:47, Reinhold {Rey} Aman wrote:
> > Stan Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> M Winther wrote:
> >>
> >>> American blacks use to say: "They is."
> >>
> >> "They be", I think.
> >>
> > Many Blacks use both "they is" and "they be," because they mean
> > different things.
> >
>
> What are the different meanings?
I know that "be" is used in the present progressive form, such as "they
be runnin'" and "they be yellin'".
So far the only consistent use I see of "they is" is a stand-in for
"there is," such as:
I need to know if they is anywhere a teenager can stay for
free
I can't say that is specifically black English, though. I would think
the "is/are" would be dropped entirely, like (googled):
-- they outta control
-- when they gone
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
>
> Reinhold {Rey} Aman wrote:
>> Stan Brown wrote:
>>> M Winther wrote:
>
>>>> American blacks use to say: "They is."
>
>>> "They be", I think.
>
>> Many Blacks use both "they is" and "they be," because
>> they mean different things.
>
> What are the different meanings?
>
frequent, progressive, or continuative. An example:
Black: They *IS* working here. ("illiterate")
White: They are working here. ("standard")
Black: They *BE* working here.
White: They are FREQUENTLY working here.
They are ALWAYS working here.
They are NOW working here.
They HABITUALLY work here.
This is just a simplistic explanation of "aspect" in Black English
(which is quite complicated and sophisticated), but it should suffice to
show the different meanings.
annily
Interesting. Thanks Rey and Donna.
James Hogg
How did that Gaelic-derived feature of Hiberno-English become Black
American Vernacular?
Our primary-school teacher had a set phrase when correcting children who
said things like "She bees sick often":
"No bees except in your bonnet."
Irish has two verbs, distinguishing "t� s� tinn" (she is ill now)" from
"b�onn s� tinn" (she is regularly, usually ill).
--
James
R H Draney
>
>Reinhold {Rey} Aman wrote:
>> The use of "be" in Black English indicates an action that is habitual,
>> frequent, progressive, or continuative. An example:
>>
>> Black: They *IS* working here. ("illiterate")
>> White: They are working here. ("standard")
>>
>> Black: They *BE* working here.
>> White: They are FREQUENTLY working here.
>> They are ALWAYS working here.
>> They are NOW working here.
>> They HABITUALLY work here.
>>
>> This is just a simplistic explanation of "aspect" in Black English
>> (which is quite complicated and sophisticated), but it should suffice to
>> show the different meanings.
>
>How did that Gaelic-derived feature of Hiberno-English become Black
>American Vernacular?
>
>Our primary-school teacher had a set phrase when correcting children who
>said things like "She bees sick often":
>
>"No bees except in your bonnet."
>
>Irish has two verbs, distinguishing "t� s� tinn" (she is ill now)" from
>"b�onn s� tinn" (she is regularly, usually ill).
Isn't this pretty much the distinction between Spanish "ser" and "estar"?...r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
James Hogg
The distinction is much the same, yes. In fact the verb that denotes "to
be right now" - Spanish "estar" and Irish "t�" - is the same
Indo-European root verb meaning (and cognate with) "stand".
It's easy to suspect that the Hiberno-English verb for the habitual form
("I be, you be, he bees...") is influenced by the form and sound of
Irish "b�onn".
--
James