Received in an email today:

"The wages of sin is death. Repent before payday."

I'm having trouble with the subject/verb agreement in the first sentence, but I can't quite put my finger on how to correct it. Philosophical issues aside, can anyone offer a grammatically correct alternative?

The following from M-W seems to fit:
Main Entry:wage
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English, pledge, wage, from Old North French, of Germanic origin; akin to Gothic wadi pledge— more at WED
Date:14th century

1 a : a payment usually of money for labor or services usually according to contract and on an hourly, daily, or piecework basis — often used in plural b plural : the share of the national product attributable to labor as a factor in production
2 : RECOMPENSE, REWARD — usually used in plural but sing. or plural in constr. *the wages of sin is death— Rom 6:23 (Revised Standard Version)*

Not sure that either M-W or you, sjm, are on very stablke grounds, using the quasi-Jacobean English of the RSV as your benchmark for English Grammar.

I take your point, Verlangen (welcome, btw - glad to see you here) - it is not good modern grammar at all. The only real way out is to put "wages" into the singular. One does talk of one's "wage", if not so often as ones "wages", whereas to say that they "are death" contradicts the undoubted singularity of that event (well - I hope so, anyway!! - unless you are someone who "dies a thousand deaths" when something embarrasses you.)

But I suppose that the real point (and the saving of both sjm and M-W) is that it is an epigram that is definitely hallowed - both from its source (Saint Paul, no less) and from long usage. One accepts, therefore, the apparent grammatical inconsistency on the grounds of custom and practice.

using the quasi-Jacobean English of the RSV as your benchmark for English Grammar.

I'd say you had a good innings, there, Rhuby old chap.

Well - they won't allow me any outings until there's a nurse spare to push my bath-chair.

Following an obvious line of thought, I had a look at the verb "to wage" as in to wage war. There is according to the OED an etymological connection with the noun being discussed and also a link to a use of the word wager that I had not encountered previously: "wager of battle". Meaning an ancient form of trial by combat between the parties or their champions; I'm aware of the practise (Arthur's knights were always at it), but haven't come across that expression.

The links with payment for work are shown as being through medieval English and French, but seem quite obscure to me. Can anyone please help with a better explanation?

dxb.

The wages of sin is death, but after taxes all that's left is a sleepy feeling.

>Not sure that either M-W or you, sjm, are on very stablke grounds, using the quasi-Jacobean English of the RSV as your benchmark for English Grammar.


[faldagery]AHEM! Please note that my post made no assertions as to the accuracy or validity of the M-W quote. I simply said "it seems to fit", referring to its relevance to the topic under discussion.[/faldagery]

RHUB WROTE: ---> One accepts, therefore, the apparent grammatical inconsistency on the grounds of custom and practice

... or meaning.

Grammatical Ground Rule # 1. Sec. 1. Page 1.
(like Moses wrote it on the wall.)

RULE ONE:
All rules of grammar are subservient to meaning.

(Wages of sin) one entity (= is) (death) one entity.

Post edit: Oh yeah, I forgot, there's this...

I Got drunk and blew my hard earned wages.
I got drunk and blew my hard earned pay.
In both cases what he blew was his hard earned singular.

I Got drunk and blew my hard earned wages.
I got drunk and blew my hard earned pay.
In both cases what he blew was his hard earned singular.
It's rather grey area, I s'pose. A lot depends on whether you consider that there is an actual difference between "wage" and "wages."
I'm rather inclined to think that the plural form refers to the fact that they are a regular payment over a period, e.g.,
"The wages for this job are £200 per week."
as opposed to a reference to one week's pay, which could be couched as,
"My wage was right down to £180 this week."
However, I will agree that I have often heard the plural form used in the second instance.

As to grammar being subservient to meaning, I would only agree to that in cases where the use of "bad" rather than "good" grammar enhances the meaning.
I could never condone the use of bad grammar just because its use doesn't affect the meaning.

Then there's grammar by meaning and grammar by form. Case in point: Sports team references. Brit grammar prefers the use of plural verbs with team names, e.g., Arsenal win in their annual grudge match v. Little Sisters of the Poor. USns go by the form of the team name, e.g., UConn wins in third attempt at NIT championship; the Huskies were successful at last. On the other hand, USns go by meaning in the following: Buffalo is expecting 6 inches or less of total snowfall this August.

I could never condone the use of bad grammar just because its use doesn't affect the meaning. - Rhubarb

Well then Mr. Rhuby, you must be referring to the important, but auxiliary, transfer of information that is conveyed by writing or speech that identifies the speaker as belonging to a certain social class, like that snooty, elite, but necessary, group that either condones, or they don't.

What several other of our experts are going around, Verlangen [Herzlich thut mich verlangen?] is the concept that an expression which has a plural construction can actually be a singular. 'Wages" in this context is such a construction and is perfectly good grammar, since the singular subject (even though it has a plural form) goes with the singular verb.

Here's another instance:
"When you awaken, what you first see on the beside table is a glass of water, a napkin and a spoon." You might think that the enumeration of 3 items is inconsistent with the singular 'is', but no. In this instance, the items enumerated constitute a collection, or a scene, which is the subject of the verb and is treated as singular.

writing or speech that identifies the speaker as belonging to a certain social class,

I have never considered that grammar is essentially a matter of class. (Although I am very aware that there can be a high degree of snobbishness attached to it by the "snooty, elite but necessary" sort of person)

Grammar has much more, I would submit, to do with clarity an lack of ambiguity than anything else. It's all very good and proper to say, "We don' wan' no steenkin' rules," and my anarchist background and beliefs supports me in that view of unnecessary rules. But to dispense with rules altogether leads, not to anarchy but to chaos.
(as an aside, it is interesting to note that the longest list of house rules I've ever encountered were hung on the back door of an anarchist community in Yorkshire.)

The grammar that we have grown up with was certainly imposed by the top few percent of society, for the good reasons that they were the ones with education, and the ones to whom clarity and unambiguity were most important (for the business of governing and control, etc.) Other communities developed their own set of customs and rules which, though different, were just as strictly observed.
Now that the bulk of the societies that we on this board live in are educated (at least to a point) grammar is no longer being dictated from the top and there have been all sorts of subtle (and not-so-subtle) changes, many of which I have seen deplored on this board.

The point I'm making is, that whilst it is perfectly true that, in the past, grammar has been the property of the elite, it is now incresingly in the hands of everyone and is being led by pop-stars, sports "personalities", TV presenters, all aided by the media. But it is still grammar, and to be not only understood but thought to be a good commuinicator, you have to keep up with whatever the current rules are.
Those who stand back from this dynamism, throwing up there hands in horror and complaining about "the debasement of the language" are being "snooty and elite", but they are *not the ones who are setting the grammar rules. (and probably aren't very necessary!)

(as an aside, it is interesting to note that the longest list of house rules I've ever encountered were hung on the back door of an anarchist community in Yorkshire.)- -

And I, Commando, agree with every swinging word you said in your last post, and I am proud if my slight dig at "the keepers of the keys", in anyway encouraged your response.

Well said... Sir!

Has sjm brought a new bit of AWAD-lingo to the fore with ["faldagery"]?
Or have I just not been paying close enough attention?

I've always understood your wage is your remuneration and your wages are the pile of bills with which you are renumerated. Something about "compound" sticks in a dusty corner of my mind.
Anyway wages of sin is ...is so firmly entrenched I doubt our pronunciamentos (see today's wwftd) will have much effect.

if my slight dig at "the keepers of the keys", in anyway encouraged your response.

Rather more than encouraged, milum: I had never really worked out what I thought until your prompt. So, you have done me great service in inciting me to think clearly about a relatively important matter.

Many thanks to you - Sir!

(as an aside, it is interesting to note that the longest list of house rules I've ever encountered were hung on the back door of an anarchist community in Yorkshire.)

Was they?

(as an aside, it is interesting to note that the longest list of house rules I've ever encountered were hung on the back door of an anarchist community in Yorkshire.)

Was they?

*Rimshot*®, methinks.

grammar ... is now incresingly in the hands of everyone and is being led by pop-stars, sports "personalities", TV presenters, all aided by the media. But it is still grammar, and to be not only understood but thought to be a good commuinicator, you have to keep up with whatever the current rules are.

I agree--right up until the last phrase. I suppose, like so many things, what we can tolerate is subjective. I can tolerate sentences ending in a preposition, for ex., but I am absolutely not going to let someone who says "ain't got no" set the standard for me; I don't care how famous they are.

I can tolerate sentences ending in a preposition

Can you always tell when it's a preposition?

Jack and Jill ran up a big hill.

Jack and Jill ran up a big bill.

Pop songs are notorious for bad grammar. The last line of this oldie seem to me
to mean just the opposite of the words:
I've got spurs that
jingle, jangel, jingle
As I go riding merrily along.
And they sing, "Oh, ain't you
glad you're single?"
And that song ain't
so very far from wrong.

to be not only understood but thought to be a good commuinicator, you have to keep up with whatever the current rules are Rhuby

I am absolutely not going to let someone who says "ain't got no" set the standard for me; I don't care how famous they are. Jackie

What I'm really meaning is, not so much that you have to use the constructions that you dislike, but that you have to accept the obvious meaning implied by common phrases, like the one that you quote, without comment.

Like you, I would not seriously use "ain't got no" to express my lack of whatever, but when someone else uses it, I do not pretend to take it at it's grammatical face value - I understand that person to be expressing a lack.
I think most of us do that, anyway.

(Afterthought) I also mean that we should not use old and outmoded grammatical constructions to audiences who do not relate to them. I use quite high-flown language on this board, because I believe that no-one will find it too obscure (laughable, perhaps!). I also use a wide vocabulary when I'm teaching - and try to keep to the grammatical standards with which I was raised.
But I use a much more "ordinary" set of words and constructions in the pub of an evening.

Ain't for nothin' that the AHD's usage panel includes television personalities along with the usual suspects (i.e., linguists).