It's an old question which, in a private lesson on Sunday, threw up a wrinkle that I couldn't give a ready answer for.

Consider phrases like

a pair of trousers
a group of singers
a packet of biscuits

The rule that we are often taught, the rule that Chinese students are taught is that verb agreement goes with pir, group, packet so "a pair of trousers is" not "a pair of trousers are" and so on.

I try to teach both the grammar and the common usage, identifying which is likely to be the correct answer on an exam (which, after all, is what language teaching here is really about).

So here's the sentence in question

On Saturday a lot of people is/are expected to attend the event.

Doesn't require a moment's thought. It's "are". It has to be. No one would ever make the verb agree with the singular "lot" and say "A lot of people is expected..."

My student wanted to know why the rule he has been taught (which isn't a good rule, but it's what they have told him) breaks down in this example.


But why? Why can't the verb agree with "lot" instead of "people"?
I couldn't explain beyond "because it can't".
Can anyone else suggest a reason I can give him?

You are right. I'd tend to say "a lot of people are..." and yet I'd say a "pair of trousers is." I am not sure why. I suspect the prescriptivists would say, "A lot of people is coming..."

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
You are right. I'd tend to say "a lot of people are..." and yet I'd say a "pair of trousers is." I am not sure why. I suspect the prescriptivists would say, "A lot of people is coming..."

I don't think they would. I think this is one where they would go with common usage. It just sounds so wrong the other way.

There is quite a difference between British and American usage in this regard I understand, particularly if the speaker/writer goes on to refer to actions by individual members of a group noun. For instance, we might say The House of Commons forms part of the British Parliament (singular) but would often also say The House of Commons are debating the bill tonight (plural).

It's probably because we tend to view the modifying phrase "a lot of" the same way we do "many". So, while originally "a lot of" was similar to "a pair", etc., now it's felt to be more like "many". People tend to slur it together into "alotta". and even spell "a lot" as "alot".

If you see number 4 here, the explanation is that you use the singular with quantity but the plural with number.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
If you see number 4 here, the explanation is that you use the singular with quantity but the plural with number.

quote:

A lot of, a great deal of, plenty of, some of and most of are singular when they refer to amount or quantity, but plural when they refer to number.
Wrong : A lot of people is coming to the meeting. (number)
Right : A lot of people are coming to the meeting.
Wrong : A lot of work have still to be completed. (amount)
Right : A lot of work has still to be completed.

I think that explanation is confused. It's not about number and amount. The verb is agreeing with the noun, that's all. people is plural and work is singular.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

Here's a googlebook quote from an ESL text regarding expressions of quantity in American English. Scroll to p.58 to see this rule (in box):

quote:

In expressions of quantity constructed with "of" (some of, a lot of, and so on), the number of the verb is determined by the noun or pronoun that follows "of":
"Some of those BOOKS are new"
"A lot of the EQUIPMENT is new"

The exceptions to this rule are "one", "every" and each:
"ONE of the CD's is mine"
"EACH of those books is new"

quote:

I think that explanation is confused.

Well, I think the explanation is clear, though perhaps, at least in your opinion, it's wrong. I don't think it is "confused," though.

To me, with your explanation, goofy, then it should be "a lot of people is" since lot is what should take the verb, not people. Of course nobody disagrees with "a lot of work is;" it's the "people" example that is in question.

Bethree's explanation seems to be similar to the one that I posted; it is just stated differently.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:

quote:

I think that explanation is confused.

Well, I think the explanation is clear, though perhaps, at least in your opinion, it's wrong. I don't think it is "confused," though.

Oh it's clear, and it gets you the right answer. But it's confused because it's focused on the wrong thing. The verb agrees with the noun, that's it. (I wrote "noun", maybe I should have written "main noun", the noun after "of".) Surely it's easier to make sure the noun and the verb agree than to think about whether the expression refers to amount or number.

It's like saying that the difference between the verbs in these sentences:
People are coming to the meeting.
Work still has to be completed.
is that the first refers to a number, and the second refers to an amount.

But in fact the real difference isn't "number" and "amount", it's plural and singular.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

All of which I know.

And in England it is still frequently taught by the most pedantic that the verb should agree with with the noun BEFORE the "of".

You shouldn't say " a team of analysts are" you should say "a team of analysts is" because there is only one team.
In practice we use both to shift the focus between the group and the individuals that comprise it.

In China the rule is taught, as the most prescriptive of English prescriptivists have it, that agreement must ALWAYS be with the group noun.

And then along comes "a lot of" to go and spoil it.

And I still don't know what to tell my student other than "that's the way it is because that's the way it is".

I think zmježd's explanation is the best. "some of, a lot of, plenty of" are modifying phrases like "plenty, many". They're adjectives, in other words.

Kalleh, the rule set forth in the "Common Errors" link didn't help me because I don't really get the difference between 'amount or quantity' vs 'number'. Does this mean uncountable vs countable? But trying to pin the rule to that concept might produce another bunch of exceptions.

When I first read the student's question, I was thinking, you can't say "a lot of people is" because it makes "a lot" sound like a measured amount (like a bushel of apples). But then that doesn't explain "some of the people are".

Maybe the rule could be "expressions of quantity constructed with 'of' (one of, a lot of, each of, several of, etc.) function as adjectives"?

Diagramming sentences was so much easier for me than applying written rules. (When I plot a route, I never look at the directions on google, just the map.)

quote:

And in England it is still frequently taught by the most pedantic that the verb should agree with with the noun BEFORE the "of".

In the U.S., too, Bob.

Bethree, I realize the site I linked to was not an academic one, like Language Log or the like. However, the way I took it is that it's similar to "few" versus "less."

This is not an explanation in terms of "good old-fashioned grammar" but one from the linguistic study of syntax (how words are put together grammatically to form phrases, sentences, and beyond).

Sentences consist of smaller phrases in juxtaposition. These smaller phrases are thing like noun phrases (NP), verb phrases (VP), prepositional phrases (PP), etc. Take a simple sentence (S) like "the cat sat on the mat". It consists of the NP "the cat" and the VP "sat on the mat" (which in turn consists of the verb (V) "sat" and a PP "on the mat" (which in turn consists of a preposition (prep) "on" plus a NP "the mat")). These analyses are usually displayed as trees, but there are other ways like embedded lists:

[S [NP [det "the"][N "cat"]][VP [V "sat"][PP [prep "on"] [NP [det "the"][N "mat"]]]]]

Now, not all NPs are det (determiners) followed by nouns. Their structure can be quite varied and complex. Consider the sentence "the three, old books on the new table from IKEA (over there in the corner) belong to Nina". The subject of this S is the NP "the three, old books on the new table from IKEA (over there in the corner)". The question is what is the core noun from which all the other modifiers, both adjectives and PP, can be stripped? Most would answer "books". You could replace the large NP with a simpler one "those books"; or even simpler "they".

This core noun is called the head of the phrase in syntactic studies. Basically the phrase (here an NP) takes on the role of the syntactic category (think part of speech in old-fashioned grammar) of the head of the phrase. That means that one of the Ns in the S ("books", "table", "IKEA", "corner") is the head of the NP. (And we''ve already agreed it is "books".)

So, what does this all have to do with the question Bob asked in the opening topic? Just that with my explanation above about "a lot of N" being reanalyzed, I had this in mind. In a NP like "the books on the table", I would analyze their syntactic structure as

[NP [det "the"][NP [N "books][PP [prep "on"][NP [det "the"][N "table"]]]]]]

So that "books" is the head of the NP. But, with the S "a lot of books are on the table", the subject NP "a lot of books" is analyzed (from the way it is used by most speakers) as (with M being a modifier):

[NP [M "a lot of"][N "books"]]

The head of the NP is books, and so, the V in the VP (predicate) agrees with "books" and not "lot".

Now, the pedants, sticklers, language mavens, or peevers wish to analyze this NP as:

[NP [det "a"][NP [N "lot"][PP [prep "of" [NP [N "books"]]]]]

This goes against how people actually say or write things, against usage, and it sounds weird, too. The peevers are just plain wrong.

At least that's how I see it.

I have never seen that kind of analysis, z.

So, thinking in those same terms, would the same analysis be: "Each of the people are?" Or "An analysis of the studies show?"

"A lot of people are" sounds right to me, but similar constructions don't always seem right. Or is it the decision about what is the head of the NP? That seems a bit subjective, doesn't it? Or am I not understanding your explanation?

Hm, you are so right, Kalleh. Which brings me back to the rule set forth in my google books link above.At least they had an exception for one of, each of, and every. If you go w/my proposed rule ("functions as an adjective") you also end up w/ the incorrect"each are".

I might make this a regular feature.
There was another question from that student this week that I couldn't give a good answer to plus a couple where I'm baffled by the either the question or the official answer.


First
So here we go.

First up there's this.

The Chinese people ___________ a great people.

a) being b)do be c) is d) are

There's not even a moment's hesitation on the answer. No one would say anything but "the Chinese people are a great people." the question that stumps me is "what happened to subject verb agreement?"

"The people" here is synonymous with "The nation" and the complement "a people" makes it clear that this is singular, so why the plural verb?
"The Chinese people is a great people." sounds so wrong there's no doubt that it is wrong. But why?

That's one I couldn't answer.

Now The next one is another one with a clearly correct answer but I'd venture that it's phrased in a way that absolutely no one would EVER phrase it.

Here it is.

The six year old boy ________, the family all burst into tears.

a) had kidnapped b) was kidnapped c) kidnapped d) kidnapping

The given answer is c). a) and d) are clearly wrong and b) creates a comma splice which is a no-no in China (though I personally like comma splices)

So the answer is "The six year old boy kidnapped,the family all burst into tears."

Clearly this phrasing is grammitical and completely within the rules of the language but I have a problem with it. I just don't believe that it's a natural sentence. I prefer the comma splice.

The final one is where I think the official answer is wrong.

What _________ used as the main building materials today _________ steel and concrete.

a) is, is b) is, are c) are, is d) are, are

The given answer is a) but I'm convinced (because of the plural materials) that it should be d)

Anyoneone got any thoughts on any of this?

I looked through the OED entry on people. It always has plural concord (from the 15th century). Even a people has plural concord.

quote:

▸a1382 Bible (Wycliffite, E.V.) (Douce 369(1)) (1850) Prov. xxx. 25 Foure thingis þer ben þe leste of þe erþe..Amptis, a feble puple, [etc.] [a1425 L.V. Amtis, a feble puple; 1535 Coverdale, The Emmettes are but a weake people; 1560 (Genev.), The pismires a people not strong; 1611 The Ants are a people not strong; L. populus infirmus].

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

"the Chinese people are a great people"

People are like sheep and fish. The words may be singular in form, but, as goofy said, they take plural concord. Well, fish can be used in three different ways: "The fish is in the fridge", "the fish are dying from a mysterious virus", and "the fishes are in the back of the pet store".

I'll never forget the first time I heard the Beatle's Only a Northern Song with its (to US ears) bizarre line "you may think the band are not quite right, but they are". We would say "the band is not quite right".

This just shows that form is not enough, you have to take into account how words are used (grammatically) by the speakers of a language.

kidnapped

If I were to write such a sentence, I would write: "the thirteen year old boy having been kidnapped, his family burst into tears." The answer as given sounds a bit Latinate.

what is used

As for this last one, it just sounds bad, and again I would rewrite it. When I started to read it I filled in the first blank with is, because "materials" was so far separated, that concord with "what" took precedence in my mind, but I stumbled on the last one, and then got hopelessly confused.

I would go with (a), but find (d) acceptable. The other two just confuse things.

The thing wrong with so many of these examples, Bob, is that they are not sentences that people could actually find in the wild, but examples that were probably cribbed from some other bad test or text book.

quote:

I would write: "the thirteen year old boy having been kidnapped, his family burst into tears." The answer as given sounds a bit Latinate.

And your suggestion doesn't sound Latinate? It reminds me of Caesar's Gallic Wars

And your suggestion doesn't sound Latinate?

Oh, I suppose it does. That's what I get for all those years of Latin.

The boy's family burst into tears when they were told he had been kidnapped.

I always did like the nominative absolute construction, but in Latin it's in the ablative case. It's like parallel cutting in movies.

quote:

The thing wrong with so many of these examples, Bob, is that they are not sentences that people could actually find in the wild,

I always stress that point with him.

Whenever we hit one of these weird examples I try to make it clear that while I can (usually) find and justify the answer they are looking for, I don't believe anyone would EVER actually say them.

Because the student in question is bright I try to show him both what is required to pass his exams and what the real usage is. We have some very interesting discussions. The is/is,are/are,is/are,are is example led to a great discussion.

Like you I iitially started out with "is" in the first gap, stumbled a bit when I hit "materials" and revised my idea completely when I hit "cancrete and steel".

The examples are terrible but we can't cast the first stone when we publish nonsense like this and this both of which are discussed at length by Peter Harvey here and here.

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
People are like sheep and fish. The words may be singular in form, but, as goofy said, they take plural concord.

True, but when we speak of "a people" in a sense that is synonymous with "a nation", it still takes plural concord (though "nation", of course, takes singular) and that's what was throwing him (in finding the right answer) and me (in explaining it).

I'm a little late to this, but my thoughts were much like z's:

1) People would be plural to me, so I'd use are. While I agree that many of these wouldn't be sentences you'd commonly see, this one is the most common, I think. For example:

quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[an aside: I found this online and am a little perplexed by the random capital letters.]

2) Your talk of "comma splices" I've not heard; to me, it's a run-on sentence. I'd have chosen c), though it wouldn't be a common sentence.

3) I might have said b). I get that the last part is plural, but the first part is more confusing. I could see it meaning "What is used," as the package of what is used. However, as others have said, I'd just change the sentence.

Not all that late - I only posted it about 12 hours ago.

True, but when we speak of "a people" in a sense that is synonymous with "a nation", it still takes plural concord (though "nation", of course, takes singular) and that's what was throwing him (in finding the right answer) and me (in explaining it).

A people are is a perfect thing to bring up when folks are peeving about "singular they" usage. Basically, a language tends towards grammatical rules that are internally consistent with one another, but then every language I have ever studied always has exceptions to these rules.

In the end, a people may have the same referent as a nation but they are different words and (probably) have slightly different, connotative meanings. Asking why a people are is grammatical is like asking why we don't say *goed for went. Just 'cause.

Yes, that's a good point, z. I was thinking, for example, about the saying that Jews are the chosen people (no, I don't believe it).

However, in this particular instance, for the way I write (grammatical or not), I'd always use a plural verb with it.

However, in this particular instance, for the way I write (grammatical or not), I'd always use a plural verb with it.

But, my point is that it is grammatical. And, the mere fact that everybody uses plural concord with the lexical item "people" is proof of its grammaticality. Anybody who tries to tell you that it is "ungrammatical" is just plain wrong.

The only way to determine the rules of grammar is to observe how people use a language. If they do something consistently that is because their grammar of their variety of language has a rule in it that licenses such a construction. Of course, people make mistakes and correct themselves all the time, but I have never heard anybody correct themselves by saying "a people is". This is something the peevers cannot seem to comprehend. They do not like the very idea of language change, especially on their watch. They want to control how people speak. In a way, the language mavens of the world espouse a kind of political correctness, except in their case, it's "grammatical correctness".

I almost see the political correctness as part of the descriptivists, with the presriptivists being a part of grammatical correctness. I wonder why descriptiveness hasn't caught on more with writers and the general public. My editors just look at me like I am crazy when I point them to articles in Language Log or discussions on Wordcraft about language.

I wonder why descriptiveness hasn't caught on more with writers and the general public.

Because, all of us spend such a lot of time learning bogus rules in primary and secondary school, most of us believe those bogus rules are just and right and correct.

Because grammar is so much more than what the bogus-rule-pushers would have us believe, it is in fact easier to hold a handful of bogus rules in one's head rather than to learn how languages actually work and what grammar actually is.

John McIntyre opines on the differences between peevers and linguists.

quote:

But they will challenge and check you when you insist on elevating your personal stylistic preferences to the stature of rules of English. (link)

Well this week's lesson produced little of interest. The questions were mostly relatively straightforward and mundane.
A couple though did throw up another common issue in Chinese exam questions - instances where what the student needs to do is second guess the examiner's intended meaning to determine which answer to choose.

Here's the first.

It has been found that the disease will lead to a greater number of sufferers __________ treated seriously when the symptom first appears.
unless/until/if/whether

Once again, I think we can all agree that it's a clunky and unwieldy sentence, but what's the answer?
"whether" is the only one that seems to present grammatical difficulties so lets throw that one out.
"if" provides a grammatical sentence but careful reading seems to give this sentence the opposite meaning to that probably intended.
"unless" and "until" both seem to provide grammatical sentences with a plausible internal logic, though slightly different meanings.
With "unless" the implication is that we should start to treat the symptom seriously (but we don't already) so that things will improve.
With "until" the implication is that we may at some time in the future start to treat the symptom seriously and then things will improve.

So here the question isn't about finding the right grammitical answer, it's about working out a consistent internal logic for the sentence and then guessing whether or not it has the meaning intended by the examiner.

The other example is also about logic, but in a slightly different way. Before I get to, it let me explain.

There, are, I'm sure you realise, many times in English when we don't directly answer a question, we say something that on the face of it isn't an answer at all but which contains the implication of the answer so clearly that it will be universally understood.

For example

"Would you like another piece of cake?"
"I'm trying to lose weight."

"Have you seen Mike lately?"
"He got married last month."

We understand the answers to be as if they were prefaced with "No because" but they aren't and as stand alone sentences don't answer the question asked.

Now to the exam question.

"How do you find the Amber Room?"
__________________________________

A I can't find it.
B. It needen't have been rebuilt.
C. Amazing and priceless.
D. The Russians are worth thinking highly of.

Now, it's a guess but, I'm taking the question to be using "how do you find" in the sense of "what do you think of" rather than "where is".
If you read it as "where is" A becomes the only plausible answer. But what about the "what do you think of" sense?

C is the obvious answer so we'll provisionally tick that one. Let's look at the others.

B looks to me to be exactly the kind of thing I might say.

"It needn't have been rebuilt." doesn't directly answer the question but does imply "I liked it better the old way."

D is more of a stretch but if the Amber Room happens to be in a palace in Moscow and the Russians built it then
"The Russians are worth thinking highly of." also fits fine. It's saying, "I like it. The Russians did a good job."

We had quite a productive discussion on implicit answers in the lesson so I'm glad he raised it but as a question on an exam all I could say was "C looks like the obvious answer. Put C."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

Loved your link, z. I have bookmarked it. It's the perfect answer for my editors when they annoy me. If in any situation, no matter what, the prefer not to end a sentence with a preposition (and many "up with which I will not put" sentences have been published), fine. But don't make me do it.

Bob, I'd have answered "unless" in #1 and A. (though maybe C.) in question #2.

quote:

D. The Russians are worth thinking highly of.

That is incredibly clunky. Although I don't subscribe of course to the idea that you mustn't end a sentence with a preposition that is one sentence that should be prescribed.

Agreed, arnie, even though I stand up for prepositions ending a sentence to my editors.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:

Bob, I'd have answered "unless" in #1 and A. (though maybe C.) in question #2.

I think that the "what do you think of" meaning for "how do you find" is far more common in the UK than the "where is meaning." Your answer would definitely be wrong.

Maybe it's a US/UK difference. I don't think anyone would ask "How do you find" meaning "Where is" though they might ask "How do I find"

And I agree, "unless" is the right answer, but you can't arrive at that from grammar considerations. You have to guess what the intended meaning of the sentence is. If you are working in another language and the sentence is about an unfamiliar topic that's easier said than done.

Bob, I don't think it is a UK/US difference. You are probably right. I think it is more my literalism.

Just two this week.

Every boy and every girl as well as all the teachers who _____ to visit the museum _____ to be at the school gate promptly at six thirty.


a) is, is b) is, are c) are is d) are, are

Leaving aside the hopeless clunkiness of the sentence again the problem here is that no native speaker (in the unlikely event that they ever said this anyway) would say anything other than d) are, are.
The students have been taught that "as well as all the teachers" is purely parenthetical and that "every" takes the singular so the answe is a) is, is. And I'll bet my lunch money that that's the answer they need to put to get the mark.

The other one is one of the more difficult bits of the language, indeed was referred to by ZM in another thread - the use of "the" and "a".

In ____ film Cast Away, Tom Hanks plays _______ character named Chuck Noland.

a) a, a b) a, the c) the,a d) the, the

I know the answer they want is c) The, a because books and films when referred to this way usually take "the" and Chuck Noland is "a" character in the film.

But all four answers fit depending on the circumstances. If I know that I am talking to someone who knows absolutely nothing about movies I might say "In a film". If we have already been talking about characters in the film, I might say "the character named".

This isn't in any sense at all a question about grammar.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Bob, I don't think it is a UK/US difference. You are probably right. I think it is more my literalism.

Late reply, sorry! I'm with you on this one, Kalleh, doesn't seem a literal reading to me. "How do you find..?" in casual speech in metro-NY area would always mean "How does one find [this place]?", with the latter sounding too European to be common. "How do I find [a place]" is also possible but less common. "How do you find" meaning "how do you like" would be considered bookish & highfalutin'.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
This isn't in any sense at all a question about grammar.

Quite so, Bob. It could have been a helpful usage question if quoted within a short paragraph that provided the necessary context. It's a great illustration of the difficulty of writing tests! Even native speakers might tend to have a predetermined context in mind without realizing it. Unless you challenge each multiple choice with 'when would this be correct?' you're going to end up with this sort of problem. From what I read, it happens too often in current American standardized tests despite all the high stakes now attached.

I'd say "are, are" in #1 and in #2 I'd not give a second thought to c)the,a. I suppose it could be d), too, though a) and b) don't work for me because it's a specific film.

Indeed, but my point is that all of the answers are grammatical and they would be used in slightly different circumstances. This simply isn't a question about grammar.

Yes, I certainly have learned that from these posts. I am sure the same types of questions are put to students in American schools, too. It's amazing that any of us can read or write!

The annoyin g Chinese habit of randomly switching school schedules to different days means that both my regular student and I are at school on Sunday so he came for his lesson yesterday. It raised the usual crop of issues about exam questions. Here are another two that gave us some pause for thought.

1. When I arrived at the building all was in darkness ________ one lit window.

Two of the answers were clearly wrong so well dispense with them. The choice came down to "but for" and "except for". To me both of these are absolutely fine. I might express a slight preference or the latter but I can't with hand on heart say that I believe this is definitely the right answer. "But for" is perfectly acceptable, perfectly grammatical and perfectly normal usage.

In the other one I think the teacher is just plain wrong.

Do you think you would enjoy ________ in the country better than in the city?

My student had (correctly) chosen "living" but his teacher had insisted that it should be "to live".
I don't believe that "enjoy to live" is grammatical in modern English.

What say you all?

I don't know if it's grammatical (whatever that might mean), but it's certainly more idiomatic to use "living".

If you take the hypothetical gubbins out of the sentence (as it's not relevant here) you get the choice between "You enjoy living in the country ..." or "You enjoy to live in the country ..."

The second sounds stilted compared with the first, but both are possible constructions I suppose.

Something I forgot to mention was that the teacher (so the student says) said it was the "hypothetical gubbins" that makes the structure "to live" rather than "living".

And by ungrammatical I mean that I don't believe that the structure "enjoy to do" forms part of the grammar set of permissible structures in standard modern British English just "I is" doesn't. It's a possible construction(for me) only in the sense that any sequence of words at all is a "possible" construction.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
I don't believe that "enjoy to live" is grammatical in modern English.

It does occur, but the OED calls it "colloq. or vulgar."

quote:

1864 Realm 22 June 3 She would greatly enjoy to dance at a ball once more.

Are there any recent citations?
I've seen it occasionally in very old literature but never in any modern context.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

I would agree with arnie above.

I looked in Google, Bob, and there are a few uses of "I enjoy to live," though not many.