about number agreement as in "a scatter of books on the desk"

[tonbei]

There (is/ are) a scatter of books on the desk
There (is/ are) a spatter of rugs on the floor.

Which is right in number agreements?

It seems singular, but also seems plural.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 28/11/2021 11:50, tonbei wrote:
> There (is/ are) a scatter of books on the desk
> There (is/ are) a spatter of rugs on the floor.
>
> Which is right in number agreements?

How many scatters are there? How many spatters?

> It seems singular, but also seems plural.

That is indeed the nub of the matter. The modifying clauses "of books"
and "of rugs" do not affect the number of scatters or spatters, and here
it is scatters and spatters with which you are primarily concerned.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[lar3ryca]

Same as it is for piles. You need to figure out what is being modified.

There is a book on the desk.
There are two books on the desk

There is a pile of books on the desk.
There are two piles of books on the desk.

I would also point out that a 'spatter of rugs' makes no sense.
Spatter refers to liquids.

[Peter T. Daniels]

It's an imaginative poetic image.

[Tony Cooper]

In both cases I would use the "ing" version: a scattering and a
spattering.

--

Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

[Peter T. Daniels]

Maybe because of "smattering."

[Tony Cooper]

No, because it seems the more normal phrasing. A "spatter of rugs"
sounds like fragements of rugs scattered about. A "spattering of
rugs" means several rugs on the floor.

A "scattering of books" is a haphazard group of books.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Neither of them is an ordinary way of saying it.

There are "scatter rugs," but you don't expect several of them in
one room. lar's comment is germane.

> A "scattering of books" is a haphazard group of books.

Look at the words, not the meanings. "Smattering" exists (and
has no other form), providing a template for the creation of
similar-sounding words.

Why must you turn _everything_ into a fight?

I did not say "No." You said "No."

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 10:40:22 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>Look at the words, not the meanings.

!

[bil...@shaw.ca]

Can't agree with that. Spatter/spattering have established meanings
that involve spillage of liquids. Using words with established meanings
to mean something else is bound to lead to confusion, unless you live
in Wonderland. Even there, come to think of it.

bill

[Tony Cooper]

The choice here is not whether or not rugs can be described as
"spattered", but whether "spatter" or "spattering" is the choice if
one of the other is to be used.

The response should be directed at the OP's version.

[Peter Moylan]

But scatter rugs exist.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[Tony Cooper]

If someone yelled "Fire!" in a crowded mosque, and everyone rushed
out, couldn't you say there were a spattering of rugs left on the
floor?

[lar3ryca]

Of course. You _could_ say it, but _would_ you? And if you did, would
you expect language afficionados to praise or ridicule the utterance?

[Janet]

In article <so1j0u$k5r$2...@dont-email.me>, pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid
says...

Scatter rugs might get spattered (with paint, gravy, dog vomit); as
anyone knows who has more than a smattering of English.

Janet

[Hibou]

There are scattered books on the desk.

Simples!

[Peter Moylan]

But this does not mean the same as

There are books scattered on the desk.

which does not specify what kinds of books are on the desk.

[Hibou]

Le 29/11/2021 à 11:42, Peter Moylan a écrit :
> On 29/11/21 21:51, Hibou wrote:
>> Le 28/11/2021 à 11:50, tonbei a écrit :
>>>
>>> There  (is/ are) a scatter of books on the desk
>>> There  (is/ are) a spatter of rugs on the floor.
>>>
>>> Which is right in number agreements?
>>>
>>> It seems singular, but also seems plural.
>>
>> There are scattered books on the desk.
>>
>> Simples!
>
> But this does not mean the same as
>
>    There are books scattered on the desk.
>
> which does not specify what kinds of books are on the desk.

I'm not sure I follow. Scattered books are not a type of book, so I
don't think there's any ambiguity. I do, however, prefer your wording to
mine, and both avoid the singular-plural problem.

[Ken Blake]

Better, In my opinion, would be

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 11:37:48 PM UTC-5, Tony Cooper wrote:

> If someone yelled "Fire!" in a crowded mosque, and everyone rushed
> out, couldn't you say there were a spattering of rugs left on the
> floor?

Not really, because they'd be arranged in neat rows, and anyway they
would have grabbed them up as they fled.

[Hibou]

Le 29/11/2021 à 15:29, Ken Blake a écrit :
> On 11/29/2021 3:51 AM, Hibou wrote:
>>
>> There are scattered books on the desk.
>
> Better, In my opinion,

In mine, too, now. I had considered that wording, but, for some reason
that now escapes me, dismissed it in favour of the one I posted.

[bil...@shaw.ca]

I can't agree with that, either. My post was directed at everyone in this thread
who used "spatter" and its variations to mean anything other than scattering
or splashing bits of liquid. That includes you. Instances of poetic licence
excepted, spattering means scattering bits of liquid, not bits of rug, which
are often called scatter rugs for a reason, not spatter rugs.

bill
.

[Snidely]

Hibou formulated the question :

Think of it as a difference in scale, like pond vs ocean. "There are
scattered books on the desk" only tells you there is more than one, and
there might be lots of room for manuscript paper for writing the next
book. "Books are scattered on the desk" suggests an untidy heap that
has spread out[1], and you might not have room for the post-it of the
maid's telephone number.


[1] or never coalesced around its center of mass

/dps

--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

[Hibou]

Le 29/11/2021 à 23:23, Snidely a écrit :
> Hibou formulated the question :

>>
>> I'm not sure I follow. Scattered books are not a type of book, so I
>> don't think there's any ambiguity. I do, however, prefer your wording
>> to mine, and both avoid the singular-plural problem.
>
> Think of it as a difference in scale, like pond vs ocean.  "There are
> scattered books on the desk" only tells you there is more than one, and
> there might be lots of room for manuscript paper for writing the next
> book.  "Books are scattered on the desk" suggests an untidy heap that
> has spread out[1], and you might not have room for the post-it of the
> maid's telephone number.
>
> [1] or never coalesced around its center of mass

I don't think I'd read quite as much into it as that, though I agree
that "books scattered" is more suggestive of the action that put them
there than "scattered books", which describes a state.

As for the maid's phone number - if I had a maid, I think I'd have it
off by heart.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 6:24:05 PM UTC-5, Snidely wrote:
> Hibou formulated the question :

> > I'm not sure I follow. Scattered books are not a type of book, so I don't
> > think there's any ambiguity. I do, however, prefer your wording to mine, and
> > both avoid the singular-plural problem.
>
> Think of it as a difference in scale, like pond vs ocean. "There are
> scattered books on the desk" only tells you there is more than one, and

I think more than two, maybe even more than three.