| Author |
Message |
Stuart Duncan
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:31 pm
Post subject: Dumb question. |
|
|
Is this sentence acceptable as it is, or must the verb be 'were'?
"On December 2, 1868, General Phil Sheridan and everyone else then resident
at Camp Supply was witness to a triumphal procession."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Petter Hesselberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:54 pm
Post subject: Re: Dumb question. |
|
|
Stuart Duncan wrote:
| Quote: | Is this sentence acceptable as it is, or must the verb be 'were'?
"On December 2, 1868, General Phil Sheridan and everyone else then
resident at Camp Supply was witness to a triumphal procession."
|
The sentence requires a plural verb, i.e., "were." You might also
consider a rewrite:
"On December 2, 1868, General Phil Sheridan and everyone else then
resident at Camp Supply witnessed a triumphal procession."
--
Petter Hesselberg
http://www.petterhesselberg.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jess Askin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:37 am
Post subject: Re: Dumb question. |
|
|
"Petter Hesselberg" <newsaccount@petterhesselberg.com> wrote in message
news:2v1ih6F2gjau0U2@uni-berlin.de...
| Quote: | Stuart Duncan wrote:
Is this sentence acceptable as it is, or must the verb be 'were'?
"On December 2, 1868, General Phil Sheridan and everyone else then
resident at Camp Supply was witness to a triumphal procession."
The sentence requires a plural verb, i.e., "were." You might also
consider a rewrite:
"On December 2, 1868, General Phil Sheridan and everyone else then
resident at Camp Supply witnessed a triumphal procession."
|
OK, but how about "General Phil Sheridan, along with everyone else then
resident at Camp Supply, was/were witness to a triumphal procession"?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:04 am
Post subject: Re: Dumb question. |
|
|
Jess Askin wrote:
| Quote: | "Petter Hesselberg" <newsaccount@petterhesselberg.com> wrote in
message news:2v1ih6F2gjau0U2@uni-berlin.de...
Stuart Duncan wrote:
Is this sentence acceptable as it is, or must the verb be 'were'?
"On December 2, 1868, General Phil Sheridan and everyone else
then
resident at Camp Supply was witness to a triumphal procession."
The sentence requires a plural verb, i.e., "were." You might also
consider a rewrite:
"On December 2, 1868, General Phil Sheridan and everyone else then
resident at Camp Supply witnessed a triumphal procession."
OK, but how about "General Phil Sheridan, along with everyone else
then resident at Camp Supply, was/were witness to a triumphal
procession"?
|
I'd use the singular there.
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Barratt
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:47 am
Post subject: Re: Dumb question. |
|
|
Petter Hesselberg wrote:
| Quote: | Stuart Duncan wrote:
Is this sentence acceptable as it is, or must the verb be
'were'?
"On December 2, 1868, General Phil Sheridan and everyone else
then resident at Camp Supply was witness to a triumphal
procession."
The sentence requires a plural verb, i.e., "were."
|
Why? The singular 'was' feels natural to this native speaker.
| Quote: | You might also consider a rewrite:
"On December 2, 1868, General Phil Sheridan and everyone else
then resident at Camp Supply witnessed a triumphal procession."
|
But if the sentence is OK once you've changed 'was' to 'were',
why would you consider a rewrite? Or aren't you sure?
--
Mark Barratt
Budapest |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 4:10 am
Post subject: Re: Dumb question. |
|
|
Stuart Duncan <duncan.s@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
| Quote: | Is this sentence acceptable as it is, or must the verb be 'were'?
"On December 2, 1868, General Phil Sheridan and everyone else then resident
at Camp Supply was witness to a triumphal procession."
|
The only style guide on line that I know of that deals in depth with the
many tricky questions of "agreement" -- making subjects match their
verbs and pronouns in number, mostly -- is The Columbia Guide to
Standard American English (1993). On this particular question, I think
this comes the closest:
http://www.bartleby.com/68/43/243.html
AGREEMENT OF COMPOUND SUBJECTS WITH THEIR VERBS AND
SUBSEQUENT PRONOUNS
(1) Compound subjects joined by and always require
plural verbs: A horse and a cow were in the field.
However, if you wanted to change "and" to "along with" and put a comma
before and after the phrase: "along with everyone else then resident at
Camp Supply" that would turn that whole phrase into a parenthetical
aside, and the subject would just be Sheridan, singular.
The Columbia Guide says about that:
http://www.bartleby.com/68/43/243.html
....in compound like constructions with with, together
with, and the like, and those in which the second
element is set off with dashes or parentheses (The
husband, with his wife and baby, comes in every
morning; Fred - and Mary when she has time - jogs every
morning), usually, if the first element of a
near-compound subject is singular, the verb will be
singular, and if plural, the verb will be plural, as
in The parents - and their large dog - are waiting for
the school bus. But because of the so-called
principle of proximity, no matter how singular the
first element, enough intervening plural material
will cause the verb to be plural too, unless the
sentence is carefully edited.
The Web page is a bit easier to read because of italics and proper
spacing.
The Columbia Guide says a lot more about the topic with many examples,
so you might want to look through those pages (use Bartleby's "Previous"
and "Next" buttons). The first one on "Agreement" is
http://www.bartleby.com/68/40/240.html
Oh, now I notice you are in New Zealand, so may not want to be ruled by
an American style guide. The Brits fly by the seat of their pants -- uh,
trousers -- on these things.
What's a Newzie doing writing about Sheridan?
--
Best -- Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:23 am
Post subject: Re: Dumb question. |
|
|
Mark Barratt rakstija:
| Quote: | Petter Hesselberg wrote:
Stuart Duncan wrote:
Is this sentence acceptable as it is, or must the verb be
'were'?
"On December 2, 1868, General Phil Sheridan and everyone else
then resident at Camp Supply was witness to a triumphal
procession."
The sentence requires a plural verb, i.e., "were."
Why? The singular 'was' feels natural to this native speaker.
|
Native speakers sometimes say the weirdest things.
| Quote: | You might also consider a rewrite:
"On December 2, 1868, General Phil Sheridan and everyone else
then resident at Camp Supply witnessed a triumphal procession."
But if the sentence is OK once you've changed 'was' to 'were',
why would you consider a rewrite? Or aren't you sure?
|
No rewrite necessary. A "were" does the trick quite nicely, thank you.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lightbulb
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:08 pm
Post subject: Re: Dumb question. |
|
|
"Stuart Duncan" <duncan.s@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:cmg2sr$rv9$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
| Quote: | Is this sentence acceptable as it is, or must the verb be 'were'?
"On December 2, 1868, General Phil Sheridan and everyone else then
resident
at Camp Supply was witness to a triumphal procession."
|
Oh, the possibilities:
"On December 2, 1868, General Phil Sheridan and everyone else then resident
at Camp Supply witnessed a triumphal procession."
Or, if nobody minds losing a little of the meaning of the original sentence:
"On December 2, 1868, everybody there saw a parade."
Mike <------- prefers asking dumb questions to both making dumb statements
and dumbly making statements |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Judy
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:44 pm
Post subject: Re: Dumb question. |
|
|
"Stuart Duncan" <duncan.s@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:cmg2sr$rv9$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
| Quote: | Is this sentence acceptable as it is, or must the verb be 'were'?
"On December 2, 1868, General Phil Sheridan and everyone else then
resident
at Camp Supply was witness to a triumphal procession."
|
On December 2, 1868, General Phil Sheridan, and everyone else who was a
resident at Camp Supply, was witness to a triumphal procession. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Grammer Genious
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:53 am
Post subject: Re: Dumb question. |
|
|
Judy wrote:
| Quote: | On December 2, 1868, General Phil Sheridan, and everyone else who was a
resident at Camp Supply, was witness to a triumphal procession.
|
Should be "were". Your commas are irrelevant.
\\P. Schultz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stuart Duncan
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:04 pm
Post subject: Re: Dumb question. |
|
|
I believe 'was' is fine too. Those who don't are insisting that because
there's an 'and' in it, it must therefore be plural.
But that is to blindly follow a rule of thumb without understanding.
Here the emphasis is on the General and the distinction between the 'and'
here, and an 'as well as' is nil. (There is no logical difference or
difference in meaning.)
If you have an 'A and B verb' structure where both sides of the equation
have equal weight, then, sure, it will be plural:
e.g: 'Jack and Jill were at the ball.'
"Mark Barratt" <mark.barratt@enternet.hu> wrote in message
news:xn0dpexgo298m0001@news.individual.net...
| Quote: | Petter Hesselberg wrote:
Stuart Duncan wrote:
Is this sentence acceptable as it is, or must the verb be
'were'?
"On December 2, 1868, General Phil Sheridan and everyone else
then resident at Camp Supply was witness to a triumphal
procession."
The sentence requires a plural verb, i.e., "were."
Why? The singular 'was' feels natural to this native speaker.
You might also consider a rewrite:
"On December 2, 1868, General Phil Sheridan and everyone else
then resident at Camp Supply witnessed a triumphal procession."
But if the sentence is OK once you've changed 'was' to 'were',
why would you consider a rewrite? Or aren't you sure?
--
Mark Barratt
Budapest |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stuart Duncan
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:11 pm
Post subject: Re: Dumb question. |
|
|
Thank you for the info.
The sentence is not mine, it was posted on an ESL language forum and led to
some argument.
Personally, I prefer 'was'.
Those who argue against it don't seem to have any reason other than an
oversimplified rule they've heard from some school teacher about the 'and'
structure always needing a plural. But then in the same breath they will
argue that if it's 'as well as' or 'along with' then you use a singular.
Why not follow the logic of the sentence. Here the General is being
emphasised and the 'and everyone...' has just the same logic and force and
meaning as 'along with' would.
If the two sides of the equation had the same weight and importance, sure,
then it would be plural.
Maybe you're right and I'm taking the BE attitude of 'flying by the seat of
my pants'! ;-)
PS I'll try to find out who did write it. It was cited by an ESL student and
my impression was that he had gotten it from a published book.
"Donna Richoux" <trio@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:1gmsslo.1oslrp21p7wuhmN%trio@euronet.nl...
| Quote: | Stuart Duncan <duncan.s@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
Is this sentence acceptable as it is, or must the verb be 'were'?
"On December 2, 1868, General Phil Sheridan and everyone else then
resident
at Camp Supply was witness to a triumphal procession."
The only style guide on line that I know of that deals in depth with the
many tricky questions of "agreement" -- making subjects match their
verbs and pronouns in number, mostly -- is The Columbia Guide to
Standard American English (1993). On this particular question, I think
this comes the closest:
http://www.bartleby.com/68/43/243.html
AGREEMENT OF COMPOUND SUBJECTS WITH THEIR VERBS AND
SUBSEQUENT PRONOUNS
(1) Compound subjects joined by and always require
plural verbs: A horse and a cow were in the field.
However, if you wanted to change "and" to "along with" and put a comma
before and after the phrase: "along with everyone else then resident at
Camp Supply" that would turn that whole phrase into a parenthetical
aside, and the subject would just be Sheridan, singular.
The Columbia Guide says about that:
http://www.bartleby.com/68/43/243.html
....in compound like constructions with with, together
with, and the like, and those in which the second
element is set off with dashes or parentheses (The
husband, with his wife and baby, comes in every
morning; Fred - and Mary when she has time - jogs every
morning), usually, if the first element of a
near-compound subject is singular, the verb will be
singular, and if plural, the verb will be plural, as
in The parents - and their large dog - are waiting for
the school bus. But because of the so-called
principle of proximity, no matter how singular the
first element, enough intervening plural material
will cause the verb to be plural too, unless the
sentence is carefully edited.
The Web page is a bit easier to read because of italics and proper
spacing.
The Columbia Guide says a lot more about the topic with many examples,
so you might want to look through those pages (use Bartleby's "Previous"
and "Next" buttons). The first one on "Agreement" is
http://www.bartleby.com/68/40/240.html
Oh, now I notice you are in New Zealand, so may not want to be ruled by
an American style guide. The Brits fly by the seat of their pants -- uh,
trousers -- on these things.
What's a Newzie doing writing about Sheridan?
--
Best -- Donna Richoux |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Petter Hesselberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:34 pm
Post subject: Re: Dumb question. |
|
|
Mark Barratt wrote:
| Quote: | Petter Hesselberg wrote:
Stuart Duncan wrote:
Is this sentence acceptable as it is, or must the verb be
'were'?
"On December 2, 1868, General Phil Sheridan and everyone else
then resident at Camp Supply was witness to a triumphal
procession."
The sentence requires a plural verb, i.e., "were."
Why? The singular 'was' feels natural to this native speaker.
|
A plural subject requires a plural verb, no matter that the general (who
is presumably singular) is emphasized.
| Quote: | You might also consider a rewrite:
"On December 2, 1868, General Phil Sheridan and everyone else
then resident at Camp Supply witnessed a triumphal procession."
But if the sentence is OK once you've changed 'was' to 'were',
why would you consider a rewrite? Or aren't you sure?
|
It reads better that way. (IMO, of course.) "Witness" is a stronger
verb than "to be."
--
Petter Hesselberg
http://www.petterhesselberg.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in