Number Theory in the English Department
One thing, singular. Two or more things, plural.
Subjects must agree with verbs in number: It is, they are.
Of all the cows in the meadow, none are white. Or, none is white? “None” is zero things, neither singular nor plural.
I’m of two minds about that question. The half of me that goes with “none is” are coming out on top.
Because “half” isn’t singular nor plural either. Or aren't.
We could make a rule saying any number less than or equal to one is singular. But then, why does “none are” sound better than “none is”? I haven’t seen any rule like that in grammar books, but such a rule would settle whether a negative number is, or are, less than zero. A budget deficit is, or are?
(Then we have the pain-in-the-ass Brits, who speak a kind of English, but treat collective nouns as plural: “The cricket team are….” But wait, we civilized Americans do the opposite, singularizing nouns that clearly imply plurality: “A variety of candies is on display.” Ouch.)
Maybe we could invent a conjugation of the verb “to be” that is neither singular nor plural, but applies only to counts of less than one. How about “ib”? Then everyone would understand that “half a loaf ib better than none.”
We could use “ick” when the number is undetermined: “Albania’s economy, and possibly Montenegro’s, ick facing recession next year.” Darn those parentheticals and subordinate phrases!
These are thoughts spurred by editing ESL authors’ papers, and by watching the struggles of ESL students. I don’t want to be a grammar nazi, but what am I to make of a correct but mystifying sentence like, “Every student and teacher who attended the meeting was given an evaluation form"? (Darn that passive voice!)
Is one-and-a-half things plural? Or are it?
NGO leader, Retired prof, and Columnist
6 天前My sister reminds me, 'There’s some debate about whether “y’all” can be used as a singular second-person pronoun (to refer to a single person, rather than a group), but linguists have already documented “y’all” being used that way. So, if “y’all” can refer to a single person OR a group of people, is there a need to pluralize it further? Some people say yes — and “all y’all” is the answer. So, while “y’all” may refer to an indeterminate number of people, “all a y’all”' refers to a group of people. But not to an indeterminate number of inanimate things. I used to be a Texan - those usages are so 2nd nature to me, I didn't think to comment on them. https://wordsmarts.com/yall-inclusive-pronouns/