| Author |
Message |
Jess Askin
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 3:01 am
Post subject: Which plural |
|
|
From Blue Blood by Edward Conlon:
He was with the captain from Vice, which had their office on the second
floor of the building.
This sounds wrong to me. I think it should be either "which had its office"
or "who had their office". But I'm having trouble coming up with a rule that
covers this case. Certainly "which" can be plural: We admired the stately
elms which line the drive to his mansion.
Supposing for the sake of argument that this was one of the cases where BrE
would call for the plural instead of the singular ("Vice are" instead of
"Vice is.") Would that affect the quoted sentence?
Discuss.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bob G
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 12:11 am
Post subject: Re: Which plural |
|
|
| Quote: | He was with the captain from Vice, which had their office on the second
floor of the building.
|
I'd say, "...captain from Vice, which had offices..."
Bob G |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Lawler
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 12:11 am
Post subject: Re: Which plural |
|
|
Bob G <bobjames27@aol.com> writes:
| Quote: | He was with the captain from Vice, which had their office on the second
floor of the building.
I'd say, "...captain from Vice, which had offices..."
|
Even better, "...captain from Vice, whose offices were..."
See how this solves the problem?
Works for impersonal organization, plural or singular, or for human.
This is what neutralization is *for*.
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler U Michigan Linguistics Dept
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"A man does not know what he is saying until he knows what he
is not saying." -- G.K. Chesterton, 1936, "As I Was Saying"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Moylan
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 6:02 am
Post subject: Re: Which plural |
|
|
Jess Askin infrared:
| Quote: |
"John Lawler" <jlawler@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:71qpd.1166$i6.54@news.itd.umich.edu...
Bob G <bobjames27@aol.com> writes:
He was with the captain from Vice, which had their office on the second
floor of the building.
I'd say, "...captain from Vice, which had offices..."
Even better, "...captain from Vice, whose offices were..."
See how this solves the problem?
Works for impersonal organization, plural or singular, or for human.
This is what neutralization is *for*.
OK -- but I wasn't trying to rewrite the sentence so much as figure out
what's wrong with it in the first place. Am I the only one who thinks it's
incorrect as written?
|
I agree with you. If a rewrite is forbidden, then the only
possibilities (to me) are "which had its office" or "who had their
office". The "which" seems to force the interpretation of "Vice" as a
singular entity. With "who" we seem to have a freer choice to
interpret "Vice" as meaning a collection of people. That's in
Australian English. In US English the latter interpretation might
be impossible.
John's suggested "whose" rewrite is even better, but I'll bet that
some editors would reject it. There are some people who believe
that "whose" can never be the possessive form of inanimate "which".
Complete rubbish, of course, but editors and style guides are more
powerful than dictionaries and grammar texts.
--
Peter Moylan peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jess Askin
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 6:02 am
Post subject: Re: Which plural |
|
|
"John Lawler" <jlawler@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:71qpd.1166$i6.54@news.itd.umich.edu...
| Quote: | Bob G <bobjames27@aol.com> writes:
He was with the captain from Vice, which had their office on the second
floor of the building.
I'd say, "...captain from Vice, which had offices..."
Even better, "...captain from Vice, whose offices were..."
See how this solves the problem?
Works for impersonal organization, plural or singular, or for human.
This is what neutralization is *for*.
|
OK -- but I wasn't trying to rewrite the sentence so much as figure out
what's wrong with it in the first place. Am I the only one who thinks it's
incorrect as written? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 12:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Which plural |
|
|
Peter Moylan <peter@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au> wrote:
| Quote: | Jess Askin infrared:
"John Lawler" <jlawler@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:71qpd.1166$i6.54@news.itd.umich.edu...
Bob G <bobjames27@aol.com> writes:
He was with the captain from Vice, which had their office on the second
floor of the building.
I'd say, "...captain from Vice, which had offices..."
Even better, "...captain from Vice, whose offices were..."
See how this solves the problem?
Works for impersonal organization, plural or singular, or for human.
This is what neutralization is *for*.
OK -- but I wasn't trying to rewrite the sentence so much as figure out
what's wrong with it in the first place. Am I the only one who thinks it's
incorrect as written?
I agree with you. If a rewrite is forbidden, then the only
possibilities (to me) are "which had its office" or "who had their
office". The "which" seems to force the interpretation of "Vice" as a
singular entity.
|
That surprises me. "Which" can go with singulars or plurals, no?
The machine which was broken
The machines which were broken
For me, "Vice" seems to be the name of a single organization, and under
usual US rules would be treated as a singular. "He is a sales rep for
Viking Oil, which has its office on the second floor."
But in casual speech, singulars and plural forms are exchanged all the
time. No one would blink at "Where's Viking Oil?" "They're on the second
floor."
| Quote: | With "who" we seem to have a freer choice to
interpret "Vice" as meaning a collection of people. That's in
Australian English. In US English the latter interpretation might
be impossible.
John's suggested "whose" rewrite is even better, but I'll bet that
some editors would reject it. There are some people who believe
that "whose" can never be the possessive form of inanimate "which".
Complete rubbish, of course, but editors and style guides are more
powerful than dictionaries and grammar texts.
|
Well, I've seen that sort of remark made here before, but I can assure
ou there are people like myself who are reluctant to use "who" and
"whose" with inanimate objects because it sounds wrong to our own native
ear, not because some teacher or guidebook told us not to. I would use
them in some situations, of course, and I'd be more willing to use
"whose" for abstract nouns than I would *"the photocopier whose paper
tray is jammed". It feels like metaphorical personification.
A tree whose hungry mouth is pressed
Against the earth's sweet flowing breast
--
Best - Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in