The Grammar Logs
#505

If there are two uncountable nouns in a sentence that starts with 'there _", should it be 'there are' since there are two nouns? Is the following example correct?:

• There are a packet of butter and a bottle of milk in the fridge.
Or should it be:

• There is a packet of butter and a bottle of milk in the fridge.

First of all, we're not really dealing with uncountable nouns here. "Butter" and "milk" are, indeed, uncountable nouns, but "packet" and "bottle" are countable, and those words might determine the number of the verb (the milk and butter being included within prepositional phrases). But that doesn't really answer your question.

There are two legitimate ways of looking at your sentence. First, the real subject of the sentence, "packet" and "bottle," have been postponed after the verb — the "there" serving as an "empty" subject marker, so to speak, a kind of blank space waiting for the real subjects to fill in its meaning. If we think of the sentence this way, the number of the verb should be determined by the two discrete and compounded elements, "packet" and "bottle," and we will come up with a plural "are."

Second, the sentence can be regarded as an "existential sentence," and what seems to be the subject of the sentence is really the unstressed "there," which behaves like the subject and determines concord, governing a singular form of the verb even when the "notional subject" (which follows the verb) is plural. In informal settings, we will often hear something like "There's some people in the waiting room" (more formally, it would be written, "There are some people in the waiting room"). This would feel right in the example you give us: I would say and even write "There's a packet of butter and a bottle of milk in the fridge." (Actually, I wouldn't say "packet" at all; I'd say "box" or "package." But that's another matter.) Notice that in stressing the informality of this construction, I have used a contraction, there's, instead of the somewhat more formal there is.

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.

Is it possible and correct to use a sequence of 's possessive constructions? Which is the best choice: Peter's mother's song, the song of Peter's mother or Peter mother's song? Thank you

Yes, indeed, that is possible (except for the last option you give us). The song belongs to the mother of Peter, so it's "Peter's mother's song." Since we have the two means of showing possession, we can change it to "the song of Peter's mother," but that can sound kind of hifalutin and portentous. You have to let your ear guide in this matter, and there is a limit. You don't want to extend the string of possessives too far: "Peter's mother's dog's ticks," because you'll create more of a Russian-doll puzzle than you had intended. "Peter's mother's song" is not the same thing as a double possessive such as "a friend of my father's."

Is the phrase "one of the only" incorrect?

Examples:

• He is one of the only musicians in the class.
• Eileen is one of the only students who passed the test.
• One of the only novels I read last year was Robinson Crusoe.

It's a perplexing phrase, indeed, and one suspects that we can do better with something like "He is one of the few musicians in the class" or "He is only one of the musicians in the class." If we turn the sentence inside out, we're left with something that doesn't make a lot of sense: "Of the only musicians in the class, he is one." What does it mean, "the only musicians"? If we made the only more meaningful by adding a further distinction — "He is one of the only musicians in the class to play three instruments" — it seems improved, and that's probably why the second sentence doesn't bother us so much. Still, the word "few" can come to the rescue for all three sentences. Incidentally, I cannot find any commentary on this phrase in any of writing manuals.

I need to know how / what conjunctions modify when it comes after a double predicate.

Example: This is the story and truth of the entire situation, that you may know why I have done the things I have done thus far.

The conjunction "that." How would this sentence look diagramed? Thanks

"Story" and "truth" would be twin branches after the linking verb, the dual predicate. The "that clause" that follows (which contains two modifying clauses unto itself, "why I have done the things" and "I have done thus far") seems to be an appositive for the double predicate. (In fact, "story and truth" can probably be put on one line, as a singular entity, sort of like "macaroni and cheese.") The entire "that clause" can then be diagrammed off by itself and linked to predicate "story and truth" with a dotted line. See the section on Diagramming Sentences for help on diagramming appositives. You'll have to be creative to show the appositive relationship (which is generally done by inserting the appositive after the word it "equals" in parentheses). Here, you'll probably have to create the parentheses and have the dotted line go from within these parentheses to your "that clause." Good luck.

YOUR_QUESTION_WAS = When is "healthcare" one word and when is it two words (i.e. health care)? Please advise.

I don't find healthcare (one word) in my Merriam-Webster's, but when I do a search for healthcare (one word) on Google.com, I find over 4 million "returns," and when I do a search for "health care" (two words, enclosed in quotation marks), I get over 3 million. That's a pretty even balance. I recommend that you try that search to see how people are using the word / these words, and make up your own mind.

Is it appropriate to use a verb in the following instance:

• "The aircraft shall enter runway 24L."
Or, is it more appropriate to say:

• "The pilot shall turn the aircraft to enter runway 24L."

Either you have misunderstood your consultant or you need a new consultant. Of course you can use a verb with an inanimate object, as in "The aircraft crashed into the sea." If the consultant wants (for some reason) to make it clear that the pilot is causing the aircraft to enter the runway and that the aircraft isn't doing this on its own, then I suppose he or she has a point. Otherwise, I don't get it. I think I would use "will" instead of the more formal "shall," unless you're providing some kind of formal directions or instructions.

In the sentence, "The letter has been concurred on by the NSC, Department of Commerce and the State Department," should it read "concurred in or concurred on?"

At the risk of losing your job, you must stop that sentence from being used with either preposition. No sane person would know what it means. Can we turn it around (into an active voice) and say something like "The NSC, the Department of Commerce, and the State Department have agreed upon the contents of this letter" or, maybe ". . . have reviewed the letter and concur that _______ (what? it can be published as is?)

• I used to live on Mars.
• I use to live on Mars.

The correct form of that verb is "used to" — unless an auxiliary is used with it that would create the past tense, as in "We didn't use to drive the sedan" *which often happens in the interrogative or emphatic sense, as in "Did you use to live here?" As far as I know, there is no difference between American and British uses of this verb. I can't explain the Economist's usage of the word.

GRAMMAR SMART by The Princeton Review gives an exercise as follows:

In each of the following sentences, bracket the dependent clause and label it as a noun, adjective, and adverb clause.

What made the couple so uncertain was not entirely clear to those at the party, although some of them had seen the couple engage in some spectacular, dish-breaking, furniture smashing fights over the years.

The answer key identifies "What made the couple so uncertain was not entirely clear to those at the party" as the dependent clause and labels it "adjective." This seems absurd. The first part, "What made the couple so uncertain," seems to be a noun clause functioning as a subject in that independent clause. Am I correct?

I wonder what they think that clause is modifying, if they think it's an adjective clause? No, you're right: that's a noun clause serving as the subject of the sentence. The dependent clause beginning with "although" is an adverb clause modifying the verb of the sentence.

Is it grammatically correct to say "2 Runners-up Prizes"? This does not seem to make any sense to me, but I can be mistaken. Shouldn't one say "2 Runner-up Prizes"? Please out an end to this debate.

Thanks

You can have more than one runner-up, and then you can talk about runners-up or runner-ups (according to my Merriam-Webster's). But you're using the term as a modifier here, and "two runner-up prizes" will nicely suffice.

"The pain is present at rest and is unaffected by activities." If affect takes a direct object why wouldn't this be uneffected. Does effect usually precede a prepositional phrase? Unaffected doesn't seem to be in the dictionary.

In this case, the subject, "pain," is being acted upon (i.e., the subject is its own object), which is shown by the passive form of "unaffected by." Don't let the fact that you can't find unaffected in the dictionary bother you. Lots of "un-" words are not listed; there would simply be too many of them. If it bothers you, though, I suppose you could say "not affected."

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing