I want to know what is the subject of the sentence "A trail of ants marched across the table". Is "trail" the subject or "a trail of ants". Isn't "of ants" an adjectival prepositional phrase? So how can it be the subject? OTOH a trail marching sounds wrong and incomplete. What marched? A trail marched - sounds incomplete. Yet can a prep phrase be a part of a noun phrase? Thanks for your help.

perhaps it could be thought of as just sort of wrong; or, 'a trail of ants' could be a collective noun (like a pride of lions or an exaltation of larks : )

yeah okay.
Heh!

Which sounds better to you?

A) A trail of ants is marching across the table.

or

2) A trail of ants are marching across the table.

Not to throw any confusion into the mix.

The second one faldage, I always assume that if it is plural then "are" is the right use, but "is" would be correct for singular, but if it is the collective being used (herd of lions) I would say
the herd is moving this way
not
the herd are moving this way
But
The herds are moving this way
Would be the correct form as it is plural herds
I might be wrong though...

A trial of ants is marching across... Is gramatically correct, right?... WHICH means that a trail is the subject and of ants the prep phrase; WHICH means... I forget what it is I am arguing here. Too tired. G night. Gesnorgenplatz.

A trial of ants is marching across... Is gramatically correct, right?

Well, it depends what you mean by subject, right. Syntactically, the noun phrase, the trail of ants, is the subject of the sentence. Subject verb concord would be based on the head noun phrase the trail. How you handle the verb, singular versus plural, does have something to do with how you interpret the whole NP, the trail of ants. I would treat a flock of sheep as plural, but a herd of bison as singular: e.g., "A flock of sheep were cropping my lawn", but "a herd of bison was blocking the road".

these sorts of discussion is/are prezactly why I could never abide sentence diaphragm[m]ing.

these sorts of discussion is/are prezactly why I could never abide sentence diaphragm[m]ing.

Back in the day, I really enjoyed sentence diagramming, especially sentences in the wild, rather than the tawdry little sample sentences in our grammars and workbooks. I first learned the traditional, Reed-Kellogg system (link), but then later as an undergraduate was exposes to the various flavors of directed acyclical graphs of generative grammar (link) schools of linguistic theory.

I never could abide diagramming either, tho' my teachers
would tell me I was very good at it. I would cringe
and want to run screaming from the room when the topic
was announced by the teacher.

dagging - cutting the daglock away from (a sheep)

-joe (balderdash® fodder) friday

Wow, you have some background. I am really impressed and
honored to be on the same site with you. It surely
passes what was necessary for me and others like me
to get a teaching certificate. Linguistics are fascinating
and I wish I had gone into it deeper, way back when.

(Referring to zm 's links. ) I forgot to 'quote'.

I always liked diagramming sentences, but then, I like geometry, too.

Actually that makes a lot of sense, the two do seem to
go together. I was OK in geometry, but lousy in Algebra.

I was OK in geometry, but lousy in Algebra.

I did fine in math, but I never enjoyed geometry as much as algebra.

Strange, isn't it? Different strokes for different folks.
I think the abstract aspect of algebra left me in the lurch.
I have difficulty even learning things on the internet
until someone shows me step by step. Once learned, then
I've got it. Wish someone would have helped in that way
with Algebra - would have saved a number of headaches.
They still hurt.

I think the abstract aspect of algebra left me in the lurch.

Come to think of it, algebra and grammar are more similar than not.

Each with a step which follows or builds on a former?

Each with a step which follows or builds on a former?

I was thinking more along the lines of variable substitution. You can have the following (simple) grammatical rule:

S -> NP VP
NP -> det N (PP)
PP -> prep NP
VP -> V (NP) (PP)
det -> a | an | the
N -> dog | cat | book | bird | pond
prep -> on | at | by
V reads | loves | eats

So, the follow are valid or (*) invalid sentences licensed by this grammar:

The dog ate the book.
A cat reads a book by the pond.
*A car ran over my dog.
etc.

It's way more complicated than that with nodes being headed by certain words or subnodes, etc.

a flock of sheep were cropping my lawn
a herd of bison was blocking the road

To me it looks like one and the same
a flock of sheep\
ankkcoossdllldlddld> subject
a herd of bison /

As we have only one word for both flock and herd: 'kudde',
I suppose it must be the words 'flock' and 'herd' that makes
you decide for this distinction? What ís the difference between a flock and a herd?

I wouldn't presume to speak for jheem; but, having preposed that, maybe it's the difference between sheep and bison?! a herd of buffalo (hi eta!) is a lot more prepossessing than a flock of sheep, after all.

or maybe he's pulling our collective leg.. naah.

What ís the difference between a flock and a herd?

A flock takes a plural verb, but a herd does not. They're the same thing as far as the referents go.

I've forgotten most of my algebra/geometry, Zm....
But I do get some of it.

Thanks. That is useful to know. How would you treat "a trail of ants" - with the verb concord based on the noun or NP?

Way Interesting! Does that mean we can get a computer to form sentences through programming grammar?

In this case it's the individual sheep that were cropping your lawn, not the flock. On the other hand, it's really the herd that's blocking the road, not any of the individual bisons.

I would say that the flock of sheep was blocking the road and the herd of bison were cropping my lawn.

Ooh, I loved diagramming sentences...and geometry too! Thanks for the links, zmjezhd. One of external links at the bottom of the first one lets you type in any sentence, and it will diagram it for you--what fun!

That I really like too.

Does that mean we can get a computer to form sentences through programming grammar?

Yes, you can use these kinds of grammars to parse sentences and generate them. The actual grammars are way more complicated than my little toy snippet was. There's a whole field of study called computational linguistics that works on this very thing. There are also statistical grammars and n-grams and all kinds of cool stuff. A decent university library should have some books on it. Or I can give you some pointers if you wish.

Yes thanks. I would be interested to know more, but do dumb it down a bit. I am not as well informed as you in grammar or computers, and some times your posts I find hard to understand. The grammar as variable substitution post I understood ferpectly though.

You could start by reading this short Wikipedia article (link). I'll look around for a reading bibliography.

A flock takes a plural verb, but a herd does not. They're the same thing as far as the referents go.

In spite of much as I respect you why do I feel slightly cheated?
Maybe not by you, but by the flock and the herd.

why do I feel slightly cheated?

Sorry about that. I just tend not to put much meaning in how vocabulary and grammar vary. I find it interesting, but I'm not sure there's any great secret behind the flock or the herd. Faldo and others have different opinions. maybe they can help me out.

I guess I am in the same situation, but did not quite know
how to say it. Thanks Avy for saying it.

I'm not after secrets today but I think it makes little sense that a flock are and a herd is. Well.. whatever

I agree, Bran, but that's English for you!!

:¬ )

but I think it makes little sense that a flock are and a herd is.

Remember, I said for me. Others may differ. Little about language makes sense. I've just gotten used to it.

I am trying to think if I ever heard of the cowhands
saying "the herd are restless" tonight, in any old
Western, but nope, it is always the herd is.

Interesting is the way I begin the article on linguistics because at the begining I can make some connection (often fascinating) to practice. Then the connection is lost and the meaning gets mired in concepts and terminology, and the subject appears to get divorced from practice. Then I go "uff" and switch off.
['Wondering what the deep structure and surface structure of this sentence could be in nursery rhyme terms' e]

I know what you are saying.

['Wondering what the deep structure and surface structure of this sentence could be in nursery rhyme terms' e]

This one? > Then I go "uff" and switch off.

Bah bah black sheep are you a flock..........?
Hum tee dee dum tee dee dum etcetera.

But they might say "The beeves are restless tonight."

Yupper!
or "them dogies".

Nope: "The beef is restless tonight. So is the hosses."

Avy, trail is the subject, and the rest is logic. Boiled down, the sentence is "Trail marched." You're absolutely right, a trail can't march, so the sentence logically is absurd; but you could use it poetically, on the pride or exaltation model.

Peter

In my days in cattle country I never heard anyone use beef to mean anything but the meat on the table (or grill). Someone might say "I got 400 beeves," but not "That there beef over there's got him a case of hoof-in-mouth disease. Cain't shut up and all the other beeves just laugh at him."

Okay thanks Peter.

Up until a couple decades ago, our License plates
bragged: "The Beef State".
And don't forget the little old lady "Where's the Beef?"