The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Home Base (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Grammar question (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=22967)

monster 06-17-2010 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx (Post 663854)
But you wouldn't say "The affidavits was the only evidence" because the verb and the subject don't match up - which is closer to what's being said here.

right, because there the "were" applies to affidavits, which is clearly plural

Undertoad 06-17-2010 11:02 AM

It's a singulare tantum, according to the plurale tantum Wikipedia page.

Quote:

The term for a noun which appears only in the singular form is singulare tantum (plural: singularia tantum), for example the English words "information", "dust" and "wealth".

lumberjim 06-17-2010 11:04 AM

One of our salesmanagers pages for "2 available sales personnel"

Cloud 06-17-2010 11:04 AM

okay, yes--I now think it is a collective noun, and thus can take a singular or plural verb depending on the context and sentence structure.

Cloud 06-17-2010 11:16 AM

Glad to know everyone's paying attention in class this morning! Just to mess you up, here's another excerpt:

there is a scintilla of evidence that limitations was tolled . . .

and in this case "limitations" is singular, because it's shorthand for "statute of limitations."

Doncha just love grammar?

Stormieweather 06-17-2010 11:17 AM

The only evidence were the affidavits.
The only evidence was the affidavit.

Were/was depends on whether the object is singular or plural.

limey 06-17-2010 11:30 AM

"The only evidence was the affidavits."
The affidavits were the only evidence.
I don't see why the sentences have to work the same both way round, you can have a subject in the singular and an object in the plural, or vice versa.
The only food left was five loaves.
The five loaves were the only food left.

"there is a scintilla of evidence that limitations was tolled . . . "
In this instance was is correct if everyone understands the jargon, that "limitations" is singular, because it's shorthand for "statute of limitations."

Stormieweather 06-17-2010 12:11 PM

Dammit, made me go look it up...

So here's another explanation:

If I was If I were

Quote:

was or were: difficulty is sometimes experinced in the use of the subjunctive form 'were' in phrases expressing supposition. The basic rule is that 'were' is used when the suggestion is of something hypothetical, unlikely, or not actually the case. When a supposition might be possible or factual then either 'was' or 'were' may be used.
From Wordwizard.com

So I'm wrong (above).

Cloud 06-17-2010 12:22 PM

but that rule doesn't apply here though--this is not a case of the subjective tense. That rule applies to something like this:

"If I were to go on a cruise, I'd choose the Bahamas."

Shawnee123 06-17-2010 12:50 PM

Or even subjunctive mood.

Cloud 06-17-2010 12:54 PM

"subjunctive" yep. a bit subjective if you ask me . . .

Shawnee123 06-17-2010 12:56 PM

It made me tense. ;)

squirell nutkin 06-17-2010 01:35 PM

Them there afferdavids was the only evidense

squirell nutkin 06-17-2010 01:40 PM

And now a joke:
A businessman from Boston had been away from his hometown for nearly 20 years and dearly missed the local seafood. On a trip back east he landed at Logan and was no sooner in a cab when he urgently told the driver "I MUST get Scrod!"
The cabbie turned to look at the man and said, "I've heard it said a lot of ways but never in the Past Pluperfect Subjunctive."

Cloud 06-17-2010 01:48 PM

(lafs). and THAT is why we all love the English language so much!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:04 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.