|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624 |
Um, WW, I think that "a number were" is either plain wrong or is a mistaken attempt at the subjunctive.
- Pfranz
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
I think it's clear that, whatever the form of the words in the sentence, the real life entity being indicated by the subject of the sentence is plural. Not unlike "Arsenal were overwhelming in their game against Manchester United yesterday."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,957 Likes: 2
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,957 Likes: 2 |
To rephrase the issue - is there not a well-defined rule (assuming you believe in rules for language use) as to the preference for a singular or plural verb when the subject is a collective noun? I know I use the singular predicate in that context. As a rule.
I would acknowledge "Arsenal were overwhelming" as an example of "Britspeak," but technically I would say that it should be one team, not many members.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
USns does it by form with team names. E.g., UConn was successful in the NCAA tournament this year again. The Huskies were winners in the last three consecutive tournaments.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
pfranz, I've sent off a question about the possibility plurality of the word number to a grammar guru. Will report back here about the verdict. My gut response is number can take a plural verb under specific circumstances--but I could be wrong. I'll be interested in what the guru writes back--and she will write back within the next week. She's a good guru. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
Pranz, Although I haven't heard from the grammar guru, I did check out MW--and there is this application in which number takes the plural verb: "(3) : an indefinite usually large total < a number of members were absent> <the number of elderly is rising" Now, if "of members" was understood, you'd still write "a number were absent." I think my little story about people at the Greek festival with some doing one thing during the storm and others doing something else is a good example where you could write that a number (of those people) were doing something else. The singular verb would sound horrible. "Many went to tents; some ran home; a number was busy complaining to the management." Yecch! "A number were busy complaining to the management." [And, FTR, I wasn't beginning to suggest an application of the subjunctive! ]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624 |
Don't much care what your "guru" comes up with, the "number" itself is a modifier of the noun it enumerates, and the noun is what modifies the verb. Your guru can't change that!
If you were bad enough at writing that you said "a number were", you're actually saying "a number (of things) were". The verb is modified by the noun, implied or otherwise. The word "number" has no magic attached to it!
- Pfranz
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555 |
A number of members were absent
The number of elderly is rising
WW, this example I think, sums up the argument quite effectively. It appears to me, that the article ahead of, 'number of' is important to the determination of the plurality of the verb.
Thus,
'THE number of', is used with a singular verb and,
'A number of', is used with a plural verb.
Using the example above, if the article is THE, then the noun, NUMBER determines the verb. 'The number of', is a singular collective noun. Whereas, if the article is A, then the noun MEMBERS, will qualify the verb.
To my mind, therefore, the 'of members' part of the sentence cannot be left to be understood, since, it is an important determinant of the state of the verb.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
Pfranz ([Phaedra] wants Ænigma),
Are you one of those people who say "one of those people who is"??
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
Pranz, I just googled "a number were" and got over 8,000 hits. I think maahey hit the nail on the head by pointing out the definite and indefinite articles in the example I pasted from MW. Those articles serve as markers for the choice of either the singular or plural verb. [And, pfranz, you didn't mean to write that nouns "modify" verbs, did you?]
Here are some of the examples from the first page of Google hits:
"A number were sold to producers for personal storage and others were re-adapted by the grain companies to store bulk fertilizers..."
" Among the latter, a number were to be stable constituents of a later codified repertory, whereas other tropes quickly became obsolete...."
"The Shire produced volumes of material and submissions which were put to the Commonwealth Grants Commission and a number were commented on and adopted by the..."
"Anstruther Captains were famed for their seafaring skills and later in the 19th Century a number were actively involved in trade across the oceans, several in..."
Now I ain't sayin' that everything that's listed in Google is grammatical by a long shot. But I think the examples above are ok. I'll now list one that I think might have a problem:
"A number were due to invalid HTML which, unfortunately, had not been spotten when the issue was released."
But since I don't know very much computer language, perhaps this 'spotten' is just a term of trade I haven't seen before.
And so that we won't just talk in circles, are you saying, pfranz, that the word number categorically cannot take a plural verb? If so, I think you're way off.
And, maahey, taking into consideration what you pointed out about the definite and indefinite articles, I suppose Faldage's original sentence would have to remain as it is--but I think it could have been written more clearly.
Edit: Here's something from an Audubon report, but I wonder why the word numbers wasn't used. Perhaps there was a typo--note the lack of 's' on 'specie':
December 21, 1996, the Capital Area Audubon Society hosted its Fifty-first CBC. Cold weather hit the mid-Michigan area early this year and most of the waterbirds had departed by Thanksgiving. By count day, not only were the lakes frozen but large distances on the Grand and Red Cedar Rivers were ice-covered. Count day there was snow on the ground and temperatures ranged from 7 to 34 degrees with a south wind at 15 (gusts to 25). The day's high occurred after most counting was finished and the wind seemed to have many of the birds hunkered down.
When the number were in, they were about what many of us would have predicted but there were some surprises. 56 species and 16,475 individuals were tallied. This was one more specie but 18% fewer individuals than 1995. The average number of species seen 1981-95 is 58 and the average number of individuals is 15,900. The below average number of species was not for lack of trying. Fifty-three birders logged 118.25 party hours (57.5 on foot and 60.75 by car) and traveled 653.25 party miles (53.05 on foot and 600.2 by car) in the field. Almost all of these are higher than last year. Additionally, 8 individuals logged 15 hours watching their feeders. Seven parties traveled 61.1 miles during 8.25 hours seeking owls.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,915
Posts229,993
Members9,198
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
1,238
guests, and
3
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
