There Are a Number vs. There is a Number
Velcro_SP
1) There are a number of reasons I made that decision.
2) There is a number of reasons I made that decision.
If one is correct in this context, are there other contexts where it
might be appropriate to do it the other way?
Alexei A. Frounze
news:jrnl02hervrrj1bob...@4ax.com...
...is a... is correct in this case because the number is the object and not
the reasons. But native speakers often say "There's many ..." or something
like that. It seems like they do that mistake unconsciously and most likely
because when they say that they haven't yet figured out whether the subject
they're going to talk about next is singular or plural. And by default they
use singular.
However, I might think of an example where something similar would have to
be treated differently:
"The robbery and killing are a bad choice".
Alex
Harvey Van Sickle
> "Velcro_SP" <NOda...@cavtel.netSPAM> wrote in message
> news:jrnl02hervrrj1bob...@4ax.com...
>> Which is correct?
>>
>> 1) There are a number of reasons I made that decision.
>> 2) There is a number of reasons I made that decision.
>>
>> If one is correct in this context, are there other contexts where
>> it might be appropriate to do it the other way?
>
> ...is a... is correct in this case because the number is the
> object and not the reasons.
Are you sure? I'm not certainn of the strict correctness of things,
but to this native-speaker's ear "There is a number of reasons" is
completely unidiomatic -- "number of reasons" sounds so much like a
plural that a singular verb sounds weird.
As it works the same as -- and could be replaced by -- "numerous
reasons", I think that "number of" operates here as an adjective
modifying "reasons". (I could be wrong, mind you, and am happy for
someone to correct my impression.)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
Don Phillipson
news:jrnl02hervrrj1bob...@4ax.com...
> Which is correct?
1. In order to judge which is preferable in "this context,"
we need first to know the context.
2. English is usually flexible enough to allow us to
rewrite so as to avoid existential statements and thus
questions of this type, e.g.
"I made that decision for several reasons."
This avoids the existential statement (theree is/are)
and avoids implying that the several reasons might
be enumerated (e.g. 4 but not 3 or 5.) The word
several conveniently expresses more than a couple,
but not necessarily any particular number.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Robert Lieblich
>
> "Velcro_SP" <NOda...@cavtel.netSPAM> wrote in message
> news:jrnl02hervrrj1bob...@4ax.com...
>
> > Which is correct?
> >
> > 1) There are a number of reasons I made that decision.
> > 2) There is a number of reasons I made that decision.
> >
> > If one is correct in this context, are there other contexts where it
> > might be appropriate to do it the other way?
>
> 1. In order to judge which is preferable in "this context,"
> we need first to know the context.
Except for perverse examples constructed solely to disprove the
general rule, "A number of ... " is invariably plural in idiomatic
English, no matter the context, and any use of it with a singular verb
is just plain wrong. I know of no respectable current book on English
usage that says anything to the contrary.
People who say they use a singular verb with "a number of" (not
accusing Don of such a thing, just piggy-backing on his post) are just
kidding themselves. Here's a post of mine from 11/11/99:
****************
Matt Curtin wrote:
[first quoting Richard Fontana]
> RF> "Whilst" is not used by Americans, who use only "while".
>
> If you qualify that with a "generally", I'll agree, but not otherwise.
> I use "whilst", as do a number of folks I know. [ . . . ]
Matt Curtin (on the thread "Usage of plural", 10/29/99):
<quote>
I would definitely say "A number of people has complained", because
the verb should match the subject, not the object of the preposition.
</quote>
*****************
A bit of recommended reading:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/13/N0191300.html (scroll down to usage
note)
http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/number (see 2)
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=number (click
on "number (1, noun)" and see definition 3)
It's "a number of ... are." Period.
--
Bob Lieblich
And don't you forget it!
Father Ignatius
> Matt Curtin (on the thread "Usage of plural", 10/29/99):
>
> <quote>
>
> I would definitely say "A number of people has complained", because
> the verb should match the subject, not the object of the preposition.
>
> </quote>
This is the sort of thing i would say deliberately to be annoyingly
pedantic, but it sounds like alleotheta to my ear: "I are from Durbanville,
but they is from Bellville."
http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric//Figures/A/~alleotheta.htm
Robert Lieblich
If you read the relevant threads, you will see that alleotheta had
nothing to do with the discussion at that time. And, for that matter,
I don't think it has anything to do with the underlying point of this
thread. And, for that matter, I don't think your example fits the
definition of the term, which to me applies only to substitutions that
are legitimate alternatives, or at least aren't indisputable errors.
Your example is indisputably erroneous, and so, to me, is "A number of
people is ..."
Still, we do benefit from a new term for "singular they."
--
Bob Lieblich
"Epicene pronoun" didn't catch on
Purl Gurl
> Except for perverse examples constructed solely to disprove the
> general rule, "A number of ... " is invariably plural in idiomatic
> It's "a number of ... are." Period.
Correct syntax, incorrect explanation.
Research, read and learn about definite articles and indefinite articles.
"The number of illiterates is rising."
"A number of illiterates are present."
> And don't you forget it!
And do not _you_ forget this!
Purl Gurl
Father Ignatius
> Father Ignatius wrote:
>>
>> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Curtin (on the thread "Usage of plural", 10/29/99):
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>>
>>> I would definitely say "A number of people has complained", because
>>> the verb should match the subject, not the object of the
>>> preposition.
>>>
>>> </quote>
>>
>> This is the sort of thing i would say deliberately to be annoyingly
>> pedantic, but it sounds like alleotheta to my ear: "I are from
>> Durbanville, but they is from Bellville."
>>
>> http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric//Figures/A/~alleotheta.htm
>
> If you read the relevant threads, you will see that alleotheta had
> nothing to do with the discussion at that time. And, for that matter,
[eyebrows] I didn't say it had. Reason: I didn't think for a moment that it
had.
I was remarking on a reflection prompted by your post. You may find, if you
hang around a.u.e. long enough, that you'll occasionally find folk remarking
on reflections prompted by posts. Or has this ancient practice just now,
and rather suddenly, ceased? I merely enquire, having received no memo.
> I don't think it has anything to do with the underlying point of this
> thread.
[clarifying] The OP asked about correctness, and I'm saying it sounds like
an error to me, and you're saying it sounds like an error to you, and yet we
have no common ground whatever, and I'm off-topic?
> And, for that matter, I don't think your example fits the
> definition of the term, which to me applies only to substitutions that
> are legitimate alternatives, or at least aren't indisputable errors.
Lanham's /Handlist/ says, "Substitution of one case, gender, number, tense,
or mood for another." No qualification of legitimacy, or anything else, is
given. I wonder -- remarking on a reflection prompted by your post -- how
far afield one might roam in the pursuit of substituting one case, gender,
number, tense, or mood for another before exhausting legitimate
alternatives. Not at all far, I surmise, BWDIK? I once might have hoped to
achieve enlightenment by someone remarking on a reflection prompted by this
post, and am consequently saddened to learn that this avenue is now
apparently closed.
Sister Miriam Joseph insists that the usage has to be deliberate to qualify,
but she is a lone voice. That's the closest I can find to your position,
and it doesn't seem at all close to me. BWDIK?
Maybe you feel these examples from Shakespeare are legitimate alternatives?
"And hang more praise upon deceased I" (Sonnet 72)
"Is there not wars?" (1 Henry IV, I, ii)
"His complexion is perfect gallows." (The Tempest, I, i)
> Your example is indisputably erroneous, and so, to me, is "A number of
> people is ..."
Descriptively, it's common enough around here -- my example was drawn from
nature, and deliberate -- and doubtless shall remain so. So we seem to be
facing each other over a descriptivist/prescriptivist divide. /De
gustibus.../
> Still, we do benefit from a new term for "singular they."
Thank you for this insight, which may or may not -- WDIK? -- have anything
to do with the underlying point of this thread. Trying to be courteous, I
refrain from remarking on the reflections it prompted.
Will
Robert Lieblich wrote:
> Don Phillipson wrote:
> >
> > "Velcro_SP" <NOda...@cavtel.netSPAM> wrote in message
> > news:jrnl02hervrrj1bob...@4ax.com...
> >
> > > Which is correct?
> > >
> > > 1) There are a number of reasons I made that decision.
> > > 2) There is a number of reasons I made that decision.
> > >
> > > If one is correct in this context, are there other contexts where it
> > > might be appropriate to do it the other way?
> >
> > 1. In order to judge which is preferable in "this context,"
> > we need first to know the context.
>
> Except for perverse examples constructed solely to disprove the
> general rule, "A number of ... " is invariably plural in idiomatic
> English, no matter the context, and any use of it with a singular verb
> is just plain wrong. I know of no respectable current book on English
> usage that says anything to the contrary.
>
> People who say they use a singular verb with "a number of" (not
> accusing Don of such a thing, just piggy-backing on his post) are just
> kidding themselves. Here's a post of mine from 11/11/99:
So, if I say that I use a singular verb with "a number of", I'm just
kidding myself? Says who? You? Whaddayou know about what I do and
don't do, in the privacy of my own country?
> <quote>
>
> I would definitely say "A number of people has complained", because
> the verb should match the subject, not the object of the preposition.
>
> </quote>
Yup, I agree, this sounds wrong. But the OP's "There is a number of
reasons I made that decision" sounds perfectly fine to my BrE ears.
Maybe it's a contextual thing, with an Atlantic flavo[u]r.
> http://www.bartleby.com/61/13/N0191300.html (scroll down to usage
> note)
>
> http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/number (see 2)
>
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=number (click
> on "number (1, noun)" and see definition 3)
>
> It's "a number of ... are." Period.
Ooer, getting all prescriptivist on me, are you?
Will.
Robert Lieblich
>
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
[ ... ]
> >>
> >> This is the sort of thing i would say deliberately to be annoyingly
> >> pedantic, but it sounds like alleotheta to my ear: "I are from
> >> Durbanville, but they is from Bellville."
> >>
> >> http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric//Figures/A/~alleotheta.htm
> >
> > If you read the relevant threads, you will see that alleotheta had
> > nothing to do with the discussion at that time. And, for that matter,
>
> [eyebrows] I didn't say it had. Reason: I didn't think for a moment that it
> had.
Lower them brows, fella. You said "it sounds like alloetheta." Okay,
it could sound like something without actually being that something.
But I took you to be saying it sounded like alloetheta because it
*was* alloetheta. Why else bring it up? And why then give us an
example?
> I was remarking on a reflection prompted by your post.
Okay, fine. Had you said "reminds me of allotheta," or "looks similar
to alloetheta," I wouldn't have assumed you were suggesting some sort
of equivalence. A simple misunderstanding. Perhaps you should have
been clearer. Perhaps I should have been more perceptive. I'm
willing to leave it at that.
> You may find, if you
> hang around a.u.e. long enough, that you'll occasionally find folk remarking
> on reflections prompted by posts. Or has this ancient practice just now,
> and rather suddenly, ceased? I merely enquire, having received no memo.
No objections to the practice. I didn't recognize this as an
instance. See above.
Tuesday will be the ninth anniversary of my first post to AUE.
(Google is missing some of my earliest ones.) If I recall correctly
some of your comments in other posts, you may have a bit of seniority
on me. I do think nine years is long enough to pick up on how things
work.
> > I don't think it has anything to do with the underlying point of this
> > thread.
>
> [clarifying] The OP asked about correctness, and I'm saying it sounds like
> an error to me, and you're saying it sounds like an error to you, and yet we
> have no common ground whatever, and I'm off-topic?
Come, now. I was talking only about "alloetheta," which even you
admit is a digression. To repeat, I seem to have misunderstood you. I
thought you were suggesting that the term might fit the usage. Shame
on me.
I've snipped the rest because I don't think anything further I might
say would contribute to the sort of useful dialogue that I appear to
have strangled in its crib. I regret the misunderstanding.
--
Bob Lieblich
Enough
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> Yup, I agree, this sounds wrong. But the OP's "There is a number of
> reasons I made that decision" sounds perfectly fine to my BrE ears.
> Maybe it's a contextual thing, with an Atlantic flavo[u]r.
I think you're mixing up the plural "There's" with the singular "There
is," common in spoken English but rare in writing. "There's a number
of ... " is okay because, for lack of any good alternative, "There's"
can be used as the contraction of "There are." It's singular in form
but plural in meaning. But there's no reason to extend the domain of
this contraction to the uncontracted form and say or write: "There is
a number of ..."
Well, okay, I can't stop you from writing "There is a number of
<whatever>." No decent usage book regards this as idiomatic, but your
idiom is your idiom. Enjoy it.
--
Bob Lieblich
Remember Matt Curtin
R J Valentine
...
} Tuesday will be the ninth anniversary of my first post to AUE.
} (Google is missing some of my earliest ones.) If I recall correctly
} some of your comments in other posts, you may have a bit of seniority
} on me. I do think nine years is long enough to pick up on how things
} work.
What's this "seniority" stuff? I've been reading alt.usage.english since
1994 (IIRC, and my son before me), and Bob Cunningham has been here way
longer than that, but he's never pulled any "seniority" stuff on me.
Back when Clark.Net and DejaNews were still alive, I went in and triggered
the option to delete all my postings, but I don't know if it worked, and I
didn't post much early on, anyhow (plus which, while Bob Cunningham was
still posting his statistics, I tried to stay out of the top 25). Heck,
Nat may well have "seniority" on _me_, what with early identities and all
(I've been using the same name the whole time -- just different e-mail
addresses as ISPs faded in and out). And Evan Kirshenbaum has never
pulled seniority on anyone, that I've noticed. Or Ron.
The newest poster should be made to feel welcome, and one pass through the
FAQ <http://www.alt-usage-english.org> should be enough to dust them off
after they fall off the turnip truck.
Young Kira might even agree.
--
rjv
Will
Robert Lieblich wrote:
> Will wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > Yup, I agree, this sounds wrong. But the OP's "There is a number of
> > reasons I made that decision" sounds perfectly fine to my BrE ears.
> > Maybe it's a contextual thing, with an Atlantic flavo[u]r.
>
> I think you're mixing up the plural "There's" with the singular "There
> is," common in spoken English but rare in writing. "There's a number
> of ... " is okay because, for lack of any good alternative, "There's"
> can be used as the contraction of "There are." It's singular in form
> but plural in meaning. But there's no reason to extend the domain of
> this contraction to the uncontracted form and say or write: "There is
> a number of ..."
"There're". Hmm. Looks okay. (Utters). Sounds okay too. Of course,
it's almost indistinguishable from "There" in normal speech. But I
think that's what I'd say. And you know what? Since writing earlier,
I've actually caught myself saying "There're a number of...." So I
*don't* say "There is a number ..." and what I wrote before was, as a
certain person might say, deceit. My bad, as another was wont to put
it.
> Bob Lieblich
> Remember Matt Curtin
Who he? Brother to the more famous Shower?
Will.
Robert Lieblich
>
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 14:07:01 -0500 Robert Lieblich <r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
> } Tuesday will be the ninth anniversary of my first post to AUE.
> } (Google is missing some of my earliest ones.) If I recall correctly
> } some of your comments in other posts, you may have a bit of seniority
> } on me. I do think nine years is long enough to pick up on how things
> } work.
> ...
>
> What's this "seniority" stuff? I've been reading alt.usage.english since
> 1994 (IIRC, and my son before me), and Bob Cunningham has been here way
> longer than that, but he's never pulled any "seniority" stuff on me.
So when you wrote " You may find, if you hang around a.u.e. long
enough, that you'll occasionally find folk remarking on reflections
prompted by posts," you weren't suggesting that I was new here.
Perhaps there was a bit of irony there -- no problem. Anyway, my
point wasn't comparative seniority, but only that I thought I'd been
around long enough to know which end is up.
Are we fighting here, and, if so, what about?
[ ... ]
> The newest poster should be made to feel welcome, and one pass through the
> FAQ <http://www.alt-usage-english.org> should be enough to dust them off
> after they fall off the turnip truck.
I agree completely.
Please accept the olive branch hereby extended. I'd like to think the
problem here is a simple misunderstanding. I had no hostile intent
but may have taken a more combative posture than justified. I
apologize for any offense taken, intended or not. Can we now put this
behind us?
--
Bob Lieblich
Sincere penitent
Robert Lieblich
Gee, I dunno. I myself never make any mistakes, of course. But if I
did, I hope I could post a correction as graceful as yours.
> > Bob Lieblich
> > Remember Matt Curtin
>
> Who he? Brother to the more famous Shower?
And cousin to Asbestos.
He was my interlocutor back in 1999, the guy who said he invariably
used a singular verb with "a number of" and promptly wrote something
in which he used a plural verb with "a number of."
In similar fashion, I've also had the experience of seeing people who
swore they would never use "singular they" using "singular they."
"Never say never" remains good advice.
I wonder why the Academie Anglaise hasn't addressed these issues.
--
Bob Lieblich
Onward and sideways
CDB
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>> Don Phillipson wrote:
>>>
>>> "Velcro_SP" <NOda...@cavtel.netSPAM> wrote in message
>>> news:jrnl02hervrrj1bob...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> Which is correct?
>>>>
>>>> 1) There are a number of reasons I made that decision.
>>>> 2) There is a number of reasons I made that decision.
>>>>
>>>> If one is correct in this context, are there other contexts
>>>> where it might be appropriate to do it the other way?
[...]
> So, if I say that I use a singular verb with "a number of", I'm just
> kidding myself? Says who? You? Whaddayou know about what I do and
> don't do, in the privacy of my own country?
But suppose you go on? "There is a number of reasons I made that
decision, and it is efficiency, expediency, and a desire to please my
old mother"? Sounds a bit awkward. Perhaps you might go on to say,
"and it is three; and three is the number of my reasons; four is not
the number of my reasons, neither is it two, except that it then
proceed to be three; five is right out." But people would be sure to
begin sniggering (can I say that?)
[...]
Alexei A. Frounze
news:Xns977D8BBF...@80.5.182.99...
> On 05 Mar 2006, Alexei A. Frounze wrote
>
>> "Velcro_SP" <NOda...@cavtel.netSPAM> wrote in message
>> news:jrnl02hervrrj1bob...@4ax.com...
>>> Which is correct?
>>>
>>> 1) There are a number of reasons I made that decision.
>>> 2) There is a number of reasons I made that decision.
>>>
>>> If one is correct in this context, are there other contexts where
>>> it might be appropriate to do it the other way?
>>
>> ...is a... is correct in this case because the number is the
>> object and not the reasons.
>
> Are you sure? I'm not certainn of the strict correctness of things,
> but to this native-speaker's ear "There is a number of reasons" is
> completely unidiomatic -- "number of reasons" sounds so much like a
> plural that a singular verb sounds weird.
How about this then:
There are a box of pencils.
?
It's not the beloved idiomatic thing, is it? But otherwise, how different is
"a box of" from "a number of"? Structurally, it's the same thing. And you
still talk about some sort of container for several other objects, whether
imaginary or real, to which you refer. Is it the imaginary that makes it
different? Or should it be beared in mind that "a number of" is a synonim to
"many" in all respects including the count, no matter how illogical it is?
> As it works the same as -- and could be replaced by -- "numerous
> reasons", I think that "number of" operates here as an adjective
> modifying "reasons". (I could be wrong, mind you, and am happy for
> someone to correct my impression.)
Why doesn't exist a perfect language without so many exceptions from the
rules?..
Alex
Donna Richoux
> "Harvey Van Sickle" <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > Are you sure? I'm not certainn of the strict correctness of things,
> > but to this native-speaker's ear "There is a number of reasons" is
> > completely unidiomatic -- "number of reasons" sounds so much like a
> > plural that a singular verb sounds weird.
>
> How about this then:
> There are a box of pencils.
> ?
> It's not the beloved idiomatic thing, is it? But otherwise, how different is
> "a box of" from "a number of"? Structurally, it's the same thing. And you
> still talk about some sort of container for several other objects, whether
> imaginary or real, to which you refer. Is it the imaginary that makes it
> different? Or should it be beared in mind that "a number of" is a synonim to
> "many" in all respects including the count, no matter how illogical it is?
I'm not sure what you mean by "the beloved idiomatic thing," but idiom
certainly comes into play. There are a handful of modifiers that are so
common that the original singularity has been lost and the entire phrase
has come to mean, as you say, "many."
"A lot of" is the best example. Originally it meant something like "a
shipment of," or "a quantity ready for sale," but through a century or
two of use, it lost any image of an actual collection of objects and has
just come to mean "many" or "much." And we determine the singular/plural
by what the lot is made of:
There is a lot of sense in what you say.
There are a lot of people here.
>
> > As it works the same as -- and could be replaced by -- "numerous
> > reasons", I think that "number of" operates here as an adjective
> > modifying "reasons". (I could be wrong, mind you, and am happy for
> > someone to correct my impression.)
>
> Why doesn't exist a perfect language without so many exceptions from the
> rules?..
Alex, have you ever considered studying Esperanto? I hear it's very
regular.
--
Best wishes -- Donna Richoux
Harvey Van Sickle
> "Harvey Van Sickle" <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns977D8BBF...@80.5.182.99...
>> On 05 Mar 2006, Alexei A. Frounze wrote
>>
>>> "Velcro_SP" <NOda...@cavtel.netSPAM> wrote in message
>>> news:jrnl02hervrrj1bob...@4ax.com...
>>>> Which is correct?
>>>>
>>>> 1) There are a number of reasons I made that decision.
>>>> 2) There is a number of reasons I made that decision.
>>>>
>>>> If one is correct in this context, are there other contexts
>>>> where it might be appropriate to do it the other way?
>>>
>>> ...is a... is correct in this case because the number is the
>>> object and not the reasons.
>>
>> Are you sure? I'm not certainn of the strict correctness of
>> things, but to this native-speaker's ear "There is a number of
>> reasons" is completely unidiomatic -- "number of reasons" sounds
>> so much like a plural that a singular verb sounds weird.
>
> How about this then:
> There are a box of pencils.
> ?
> It's not the beloved idiomatic thing, is it? But otherwise, how
> different is "a box of" from "a number of"? Structurally, it's the
> same thing.
Yes, it is - but although it would be tidier to eliminate
idiomaticalness[1] from the equation, English simply doesn't work
that way
Idiomatic usage isn't particularly "beloved", but it's all-powerful:
whether or not one likes it, when a confrontation arises in English
between logical structure and idiomatic use, the latter invariably
wins out.
> And you still talk about some sort of container for
> several other objects, whether imaginary or real, to which you
> refer. Is it the imaginary that makes it different? Or should it
> be beared in mind that "a number of" is a synonim to "many" in all
> respects including the count, no matter how illogical it is?
The latter, I think -- that's how idioms work.
(You want "borne in mind" in your sentence, rather than "beared in
mind".)
>> As it works the same as -- and could be replaced by -- "numerous
>> reasons", I think that "number of" operates here as an adjective
>> modifying "reasons". (I could be wrong, mind you, and am happy
>> for someone to correct my impression.)
>
> Why doesn't exist a perfect language without so many exceptions
> from the rules?..
Good question.
I don't know "why", but if one does exist it certainly isn't English.
Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
> Yes, it is - but although it would be tidier to eliminate
> idiomaticalness[1] from the equation, English simply doesn't work
> that way
I forgot to add my footnote.
[1] I had to look this noun up. I wanted to use "idiomaticity" -- and
would still prefer that -- but Collins tells me it's (the much uglier)
"idiomaticalness".
Alan
"Purl Gurl" <purl...@purlgurl.net> wrote in message
news:X9ydnU6A8rBqlpbZ...@giganews.com...
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
>> Except for perverse examples constructed solely to disprove the
>> general rule, "A number of ... " is invariably plural in idiomatic
>
>> It's "a number of ... are." Period.
>
> Correct syntax, incorrect explanation.
>
> Research, read and learn about definite articles and indefinite articles.
>
> "The number of illiterates is rising."
> "A number of illiterates are present."
Is she *really* saying that one chooses singular or plural verbs based on
the use of defnite or indefinite articles??
Harvey Van Sickle
Interestingly, Burchfield says something similar -- not that it's
structurally *dependant* upon the article, but that that's the way
the idioms work.
Robert Lieblich
I don't know about a general rule, but that is the rule for "number
of" (or at least one way of putting the rule). I posted a few URLs
for various usage books somewhere in this thread, and a couple of them
say just that. When PGs right, she's right.
Of course, given that I had directed the reader to various authorities
saying exactly the same thing as PG, it seems a bit ungracious of her
to accuse moe of an incorrect explanation. Perhaps it's part of her
general scorn for authority -- even if the authority agrees with her.
--
Bob Lieblich
Himself right on occasion
Alan
> On 05 Mar 2006, Alan wrote
>
>>
>> "Purl Gurl" <purl...@purlgurl.net> wrote in message
>> news:X9ydnU6A8rBqlpbZ...@giganews.com...
>>> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>>>
>>>> Except for perverse examples constructed solely to disprove the
>>>> general rule, "A number of ... " is invariably plural in
>>>> idiomatic
>>>
>>>> It's "a number of ... are." Period.
>>>
>>> Correct syntax, incorrect explanation.
>>>
>>> Research, read and learn about definite articles and indefinite
>>> articles.
>>>
>>> "The number of illiterates is rising."
>>> "A number of illiterates are present."
>>
>> Is she *really* saying that one chooses singular or plural verbs
>> based on the use of defnite or indefinite articles??
>
> Interestingly, Burchfield says something similar -- not that it's
> structurally *dependant* upon the article, but that that's the way
> the idioms work.
Harvey Van Sickle
[quote]
*number*, as a noun of multitude in the type 'a number of + pl.
noun', normally governs a plural verb both in BrE and AmE. Examples:
[quotations from the Times, Daedalus, Bodleian, New Yorker]. . .By
contrast the type 'the number of + pl. noun' normally governs a
singular verb. Examples: [quotations from Daily Telegraph,
Bull.Amer.Acad.Arts & Sci.]
[/quote]
That's the whole of the article. I took his use of "normally" to
indicate idiomatic rather than structurally formal usage, but perhaps
there's another interpretation.
Iskandar Baharuddin
Just think how boring it would be.
--
Shalom & Salam
Izzy
Help is coming!:
"Who Says English Ain't Phonetic?: 267,982 Simple Rules for Perfect Spelling and Pronunciation."
In leading bookstores QI 2562.
Alexei A. Frounze
news:1hbr06h.13oielnqxw8liN%tr...@euronet.nl...
Shoot... The idioms are getting me. I'd probably write exactly as you just
did if I were to use a lot. I can't tell why.
>> > As it works the same as -- and could be replaced by -- "numerous
>> > reasons", I think that "number of" operates here as an adjective
>> > modifying "reasons". (I could be wrong, mind you, and am happy for
>> > someone to correct my impression.)
>>
>> Why doesn't exist a perfect language without so many exceptions from the
>> rules?..
>
> Alex, have you ever considered studying Esperanto? I hear it's very
> regular.
I'll take a look at it. There's one unfortunate thing about it though, too
few people know it.
Alex
Alan
of.." makes sense. I may have misunderstood PG completely, but it seemed to
me she was saying that verb singularity or plurality was dependent on the
article (regardless of the idiom).
Alexei A. Frounze
news:fhrm02tkm5hratdd2...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 12:26:00 -0800, "Alexei A. Frounze"
>>Why doesn't exist a perfect language without so many exceptions from the
>>rules?..
>>
> Just think how boring it would be.
I think we can have well-defined grammar with very few rules and no
exceptions and still have enough resouces to combat the boredom. Nobody
prohibts different use/meaning of words (though, I guess, English has gone a
very far way here, maybe too far), the poetry and songs are still possible
as long as words rhyme, and one can still tell or write fake stories for the
fun. Isn't that enough?
Alex
Peter Moylan
Esperanto, like several other languages, uses exactly the same word for
"there is" and "there are". Indeed, I've just remembered that Russian
does the same. You could legislate the problem out of existence, even
in English, by inventing a new word. It doesn't seem to help much,
though. I suspect that large numbers of English speakers would vote for
Russian as one of the most difficult languages to learn.
Even Esperanto has its problems. My son, who knows more about the
matter than I do, tells me that Esperantists still argue over the
difference between a future auxiliary used with a past participle and a
present auxiliary used with a future participle. (Or something like
that. I don't pretend to know the details. I'm still struggling to
understand the difference between the suffixes -igxota and -igonta.)
Verb tenses are particularly regular in Esperanto, but you still have to
figure out which one to use.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists.
My e-mail addresses at newcastle.edu.au will probably remain "live"
for a while, but then they will disappear without warning.
The optusnet address still has about 5 months of life left.
Harvey Van Sickle
She may well have meant that -- wouldn't surprise me in the least --
but it struck me that she wound up at the same end-point as
Burchfield.
Could be just broken-clocks-twice-a-day effect, though.
Alexei A. Frounze
news:440bbbe0$0$1140$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Donna Richoux wrote:
>> Alexei A. Frounze <ale...@chat.ru> wrote:
>
>>> Why doesn't exist a perfect language without so many exceptions from the
>>> rules?..
>>
>> Alex, have you ever considered studying Esperanto? I hear it's very
>> regular.
>
> Esperanto, like several other languages, uses exactly the same word for
> "there is" and "there are". Indeed, I've just remembered that Russian
> does the same. You could legislate the problem out of existence, even
> in English, by inventing a new word. It doesn't seem to help much,
> though. I suspect that large numbers of English speakers would vote for
> Russian as one of the most difficult languages to learn.
It's been a couple of years since I've recognized that too -- I simply never
thought of that before.
> Even Esperanto has its problems. My son, who knows more about the
> matter than I do, tells me that Esperantists still argue over the
> difference between a future auxiliary used with a past participle and a
> present auxiliary used with a future participle. (Or something like
> that. I don't pretend to know the details. I'm still struggling to
> understand the difference between the suffixes -igxota and -igonta.)
> Verb tenses are particularly regular in Esperanto, but you still have to
> figure out which one to use.
Just read a few introductory articles. Looks interesting. And it's very
regular. And the H^ sound is new to me.
Alex
Purl Gurl
> Alan wrote
> > Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
> >> Alan wrote
> >>> Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
> >>>> Alan wrote
> >>>>> Purl Gurl wrote:
> >>>>>> Robert Lieblich wrote:
> >>>>>>> Except for perverse examples constructed solely to disprove
> >>>>>>> the general rule, "A number of ... " is invariably plural in
> >>>>>>> idiomatic
> >>>>>> Correct syntax, incorrect explanation.
> >>>>>> Research, read and learn about definite articles and
> >>>>>> indefinite articles.
> >>>>>> "The number of illiterates is rising."
> >>>>>> "A number of illiterates are present."
> >>>> Interestingly, Burchfield says something similar -- not that
> >>> What, exactly, did Burchfield say?
> >> *number*, as a noun of multitude in the type 'a number of + pl.
> >> That's the whole of the article. I took his use of "normally" to
> > And what Burchfield says about the idioms "a number of.." and "the
> but it struck me that she wound up at the same end-point as
> Burchfield.
> Could be just broken-clocks-twice-a-day effect, though.
Rather ironic you boys must consult books to learn what I
simply know in my head. This happens frequently which is
a direct indication you boys truly do not know much about
English usage. For the most part, you boys are faking with
hopes none will notice. Nonetheless, there is some benefit;
your ignorance of English is almost always amusing.
There are no hands upon your head clocks.
Purl Gurl
Purl Gurl