Here comes another pet peeve: hyperurbanization, as my linguistics professor Lee Pedersen* called it. Such is committed by otherwise literate folks who don't fully understand subject-verb agreement and the role of the nominative case, as two examples.
"She's one of those women who likes football." or "Neither of the passengers were seriously hurt."
and
"The gift is for you and I."
More examples? comments?
~~~ *he who handled the southern end of Cassidy's Dictionary of American Regional English project and he who wrote the regional dialect article for the AHD
Dear AS: Since the rustics also make these errors, I wonder why your prof called it "hyperurbanization." I agree with your "over-correction". I have had the impression that quite a few people who have been corrected for using the accusative incorrectly, thereafter use only the nominative.
"Those women who like football" all by its lonesome sounds OK to me but as quick as you tack that independent clause on there the subject power of "She" rolls over the subject power of "women" and forces the verb "like" into submission, dragging it back, kicking and screaming, into the singular. The verb power of "'s" is not enough to satisfy the internal grammar checker; the singularity of "She" must be appeased.
Actually, it's the word "one" that causes the verb to be likes, not like. As in, "one who likes football".
The only example I can think of right now is tsuwm's (I think) pet peeve, and I do it myself even though I don't like it: saying "they xyz", when you've just had a singular subject: "Someone told me something, and I forgot what they said."
The problem here is that she is a member of a group of women, all of whom like football. She's not alone among those women in liking football. I wish I still remembered how to diagram a sentence. While the singular may be strictly correct (and I'm not convinced of that) the plural makes more sense, both in terms of logic and of proximity.
Here's what the AHD of English Usage has to say on a very closely related construction:
agreement by proximity. Certain grammatical constructions provide further complications. Sometimes the noun that is adjacent to the verb can exert more influence than the noun that is the grammatical subject. Selecting a verb in a sentence like A variety of styles has been/have been in vogue for the last year can be tricky. The traditional rules require has been, but the plural sense of the noun phrase presses for have been. While 59 percent of the Usage Panel insists on the singular verb in this sentence, 22 percent actually prefer the plural verb and another 19 percent say that either has or have is acceptable, meaning that 41 percent find the plural verb with a singular grammatical subject to be acceptable.
After further contemplation, and with the help of a PM from a poster who shall remain nameless (or name-full ), I think what Pedersen meant by his term stems from "urbane," not "urban." In other words, an attempt to sound sophisticated.
I think the prof. may have been trying to categorize a certain type of hypercorrection, as the linguists have it, which he associated with "the process of investing with an urban character".
faldage says, "She's one of those women who likes football." the subject power of "She" ... forces the verb "like" into submission, dragging it back, kicking and screaming, into the singular. The singularity of "She" must be appeased.
Though Jackie's response is quite correct, faldage's perspective is fully understandable with such a very singular "She" in his life. Faldage, at first one might think that you focus on "she" due to your personal position, your/you're ASpecked. But no, with such a fine tomato, no one would believe ASpic-on you!
Well I'm about to throw off the traces so I'll have to study this one at home (if a certain someone will allow me a little bit of computer time) but it looks like it's almost arguing my point.
Basketball announcer during TV broadcast: "A limited number of tickets are now available." [heard during Bulls-vs-Michael Jordan game {white}hi, musick!{/white}; posted during a commercial break]
Dear Keiva: I generally side with the pedants, but I think your example may not need correction. " A number of " almost always means more than one, so "A number........... are" seems acceptable.
These concepts are clearly plural in meaning if not in form. It's a question of whether we grammatize by form or meaning. A similar question might be raised about the choices the city expects ten inches or less of snow tomorrow or the city expects ten inches or fewer of snow tomorrow. If we went strictly by form the latter would be the correct version but we go by meaning (we're measuring snowfall not counting inches) making the former correct.
From Jane Straus's Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, I offer some expert support for my contention that the plural form of the verb is correct in "She is one of those women who like football." Sparteye, where are you?
Rule 12. If the pronoun who, that, or which appears as the subject in the middle of the sentence, you must decide whether to follow it with a singular or plural verb. In order to decide, look at the noun directly in front of the who, that, or which. If it is singular, use a singular verb. If it is plural, use a plural verb.
Examples: She is the secretary who write/writes the letters. The word in front of who is secretary, which is singular. Therefore, use the singular verb writes.
He is one of the men who does/do the work. The word in front of who is men, which is plural. Therefore, use the plural verb do.
I don't agree, CK. seems to me that the PP in this case is "of the men who do the work"... it's an adjectival clause modifying "one". similarly, "who do the work" modifies "men".
The verb MUST agree with its subject, not the noun in a PP.
yes, and in this case the verb (is) is indeed in agreement with the subject.... "He is one."
would not the sentence, in diagram form, show "men who do the work" as the prepositional object, with "who do the work" as the participle phrase modifying the noun "men"?
I have not thought this through fully, but could not the sentence be read in either of two ways: - He is one (of the men) who do/does the work. - He is one of (the men who do/does the work). The verb form would be singular in the former reading, and plural in the latter.
And it would seem to me that there's a subtle difference in meaning between the two sentences, though I cannot put my finger on it. Comments?
If we vary the example, I think we can bring out a difference between the two forms. Bali is one of the Indonesian islands which is visited by many tourists.
Bali is one of the Indonesian islands which are visited by many tourists.
It seems to me that in the first sentence we are given two pieces of information about Bali. It is an Indonesian island and it is visited by many tourists. In the second sentence, however, we are told that Bali is one of the Indonesian islands and that those Indonesian islands are visited by many tourists.
Bali is one of the Indonesian islands which is visited by many tourists.
Bali is one of the Indonesian islands which are visited by many tourists.
Bingley makes a good point here. In the original example about the women who likes football, in the one case we are saying that all the women like football, in the other case we are only saying that the one woman likes football; about the others we are making no such overt claim. They are damned only by implication.
Of course these fine distinctions are lost because of the lax standards of present day grammar. It's not unlike our former ability to distinguish meanings between she likes him better than me and she likes him better than I. If we feel we have to make those distinctions we must be more explicit in voicing them.
Sticking to my story. I see no need to start looking for different meanings in a sentence to justify a particular grammatical interpretation of it, I'm afraid.
...looking for different meanings in a sentence to justify...
Are you saying that the different meanings would justify the grammatical interpretation or that the purpose of your looking is to justify the interpretation?
What I meant was that, if you go back to my example in green, there isn't the opportunity to mis- or reinterpret the statement to come up with an outcome which requires the plural form of the verb. The example can only be reasonably interpreted in one way.
Caradea and ASp disagree with me. Faldage pokes the borax.
The examples Bingley used were, however, quite open to the interpretations he suggested, and the change in the cardinality of the verb clearly changed the meaning of the sentences.
A) That's not the sentence I was asking you about. It was the "I see no need to start looking for different meanings in a sentence to justify a particular grammatical interpretation of it, I'm afraid" one. And you don't need to be afraid. You've met me FtF and you know I'm harmless, mostly.
2) By artificially limiting the PP in He is one of the men who does/do the work. to of the men you limit the meaning of the sentence. If the PP is of the men who does/do the work then you open it back up for the other interpretation.
Thorn (and if you still *need a reason to dislike Macs, the lack of the ability to get a thorn is a classic example of ril*)) I *still don't know what poking the borax means.
Speak for (its)(your)self! And it's the Earth that's harmless, mostly. And that's just a short hop from the Sun really, Ithaca-wise, and close to several pubs. Now, to the argument in Illinois ...
You're right, Cap, I looked it up and what I am is "essentially harmless". But it's just a technicality and you know it. Next time you come to Ithaca I'll take you all the way to Pluto. No pubs close to there.
We are talking about two passengers here, aren't we? This is the equivalent of saying, "Both of the passengers were, at most, hurt only slightly." So why should the number of the verb change just because we have changed the way we say it?
Alternatively, since they, in fact, weren't hurt, this is a contrary-to-fact construction and we use the subjunctive.
a shaky grasp of the grammatical and syntactical complexities
So, if you have that shaky a grasp of the grammatical and syntactical complexities you shouldn't even know that there are some who feel there is a problem here.
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site.
Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to
hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.
), I think what Pedersen meant by his term stems from "urbane," not "urban." In other words, an attempt to sound sophisticated.
