QUESTION |
I sometimes find the expression of X after X in a subject position as shown in (1).
(1) Car after car went by without stopping.
In this kind of sentence, does the auxiliary verb have to be on plural form as in ( 2a) or
singluar form as in (2b)? Which is grammatical, (2a) or (2b)?
(2) a. Car after car is going by without stopping.
b. Car after car are going by without stopping.
|
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
Tokyo, Japan Tue, Oct 30, 2001
|
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
"Is going by" would be appropriate. It would seem, at first, that you're dealing with a plural subject because more than one car is involved. However, the prepositional phrase "after car" is modifying the real subject, "car," without compounding it or turning it into something plural, so we still need a singular verb.
|
QUESTION |
I have looked all over and cannot find my answer to this question. If the
sentence reads, "His recent and remote memory was intact", would the verb be was or were.
My understanging is that memory is the subject and recent and remote are the adjectives of
memory. Therefore, it should be was. Correct? Or should it be, "His recent and remote
memory were intact." since the first memory is understood. Thank you for all your help. This
has been a big discussion on the MTDaily board.
|
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
Havelock, North Carolina Tue, Oct 30, 2001
|
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
Since it's unlikely that "recent" and "remote" are being used to modify the same instance of memory, we take it that those are two different kinds of memory. The first instance of the word "memory," though, is suspended, and that is appropriate as long as there's no ambiguity in the construction (i.e., we don't need to say "his recent memory and his remote memory," although we could). Since we're talking about two kinds of memory, we need a plural verb, "were intact."
|
QUESTION |
Which of these phrases is correct:
The parties have entered an agreement. or The parties have entered into an agreement.
I don't think the "into" is necessary, but have been told otherwise.
|
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
Durango, Colorado Tue, Oct 30, 2001
|
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
"Enter into" gets a listing of its own in Webster's Tenth, with a usage very much like the example you list: "to make oneself a party to or in." You need the "into."
Authority: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Electronic Edition, Version 1.5. 1996. Used with permission.
|
QUESTION |
Does the following sentence take a singular or plural verb? If,
as seems right,
it's plural, why should this be so? Is there a name for the function/part of speech "each"
in the sentence?
"The countries each derive substantial income from exports."
Thanks. Love your valuable site.
|
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
Washington, D.C. Tue, Oct 30, 2001
|
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
According to Burchfield, when "each" follows a plural pronominal subject, the subsequent verb will be plural. He gives the example, "We each have our own priorities." As he explains it, "when each is not the subject, but is in apposition with a plural noun or pronoun as subject, the verb (and any complement) is invariably plural."
Authority: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996. Used with the permission of Oxford University Press. (under "each")
|
QUESTION |
My class and I have practiced matching the subject to the word does or do. However, I
couldn't find a good answer to the following sentence.
What does your family do for fun?
Why are the words "do" and "does" both correctly used in the sentence. I thought "family"
would take the word "do" so I am really unable to explain this to my students.
|
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
Las Vegas, Nevada Wed, Oct 31, 2001
|
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
The word "family" is a collective noun; it needs a singular verb, so "does" is appropriate. ("My family is fine, thank you.) If we turn this into a statement, we'd have something like "Your family does do ____ for fun?"
|
QUESTION |
Twelve member countries of the European Union have adopted
the "Euro" as their common currency. Should "Euro" always be capitalized? (I think it's a
proper noun.) Follow up: while the word "dollar" should not be capitalized, shouldn't any
reference to the U.S. Dollar be capitalized?
|
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
Tallahassee, Florida Wed, Oct 31, 2001
|
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
I looked at some of the official (government sponsored) sites in Britain about this new currency, and they don't capitalize "euro" when it's within the normal flow of text. I have a feeling this will vary for a while, from country to country and from time to time. In their working papers, the Federal Reserve banks do not capitalize "dollars" in the phrase "U.S. dollars" except when it's in the title of something or in a heading.
|
QUESTION |
When one modifier precedes two nouns, the nouns being
separated by the conjunction "and," does the modifier modify both nouns or only the first
noun? If this takes place within a prepositional phrase, is the rule the same? Is your answer a
hard and fast rule, or is it a matter of interpretation? I would appreciate a citation to a
written resource.
Example:
You shall buy it from Native American producers and cooperative organizations.
In this example, does "Native American" modify both "producers" and "cooperative
organizations," or does it only modify "producers"?
Thank you for any assistance you can give.
|
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
Washington, D.C. Thu, Nov 1, 2001
|
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
It doesn't matter where the act of grammatical coordination takes place, the writer always has to be on guard for ambiguity that is created by the coordination. It is certainly possible (indeed, it's rather likely) to read your sentence to mean that the "cooperative organizations" are "Native American," and if that is not the intent of the writer, the sentence needs to be rewritten. An additional modifier to indicate that the "cooperative organizations" are something other than Native American would clarify the sentence.
Authority: Understanding English Grammar by Martha Kolln. 4rth Edition. MacMillan Publishing Company: New York. 1994. pages 246-7.
|