Grammar question
Heya, I'd like your opinion on this:
I'm reviewing a brief right now, and there are several sentences with this construction:
"The only evidence were the affidavits."
Now, to me, that's incorrect agreement between the subject and verb. If "evidence" is the subject, then it should read, "The only evidence was the affidavits."
But that sounds wrong. Maybe "evidence" is a collective noun? Maybe the verb "to be" is reflexive and is messing me up.
If you reverse it, to say "The affidavits were the only evidence" that sounds better, and I could reword it. But I was always taught that the sentence construction should be the same either way (subject first, or object first, you still have to have agreement.)
Looks ok to me as is. Evidence is plural here so you need to use were not was.
you think "evidence' is plural?
Yes.... I think so. You can't say evidences. If there was only one affidavit it would be singular.
Imma say was. Gut reaction/reasons stated. But maybe it's different in American grammar and/or legalese.
The only deer I shot was Bambi.
The only deer I shot were Bambi and his mom.
No, evidence does not get pluralized in that way -Looked it up in my big old oxford. Evidence means one or more pieces of whatever. (paraphrasing here)
I believe 'evidence' is both the singular and the plural:
as in 'some evidence' and 'a piece of evidence'
but you would say some evidence was provided, not some evidence were provided.
I guess it is sort of acting like a collective noun...
"Evidence" is plural. It belongs to a special class of words called
plurale tantum, nouns that have only a plural form.
Therefore, the construction in your example is correct.
But I know from my copy editor friend that Brits and Americans use those diffently -one of us says "the team was" and the other says "the team were" and I'm way too embedded here to know which is which, or even if it's relevant here, so I think i'd better duck out now
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.
well, I'm glad I'm not the only one confused.
It's like the words "assortment" and "collection" and "bunch" and "group" etc which are singular even though they refer to many things.
"Evidence" is plural. It belongs to a special class of words called plurale tantum, nouns that have only a plural form.
Therefore, the construction in your example is correct.
Is there evidence that "Evidence" is a plurale tantum? it's not given as on in the Oxford, whereas the other examples mentioned in the Wiki article are.
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
It's a singulare tantum, according to the plurale tantum Wikipedia page.
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".
One of our salesmanagers pages for "2 available sales personnel"
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.
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?
The only evidence were the affidavits.
The only evidence was the affidavit.
Were/was depends on whether the object is singular or plural.
"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."
Dammit, made me go look it up...
So here's another explanation:
If I was If I were
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).
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."
"subjunctive" yep. a bit subjective if you ask me . . .
Them there afferdavids was the only evidense
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."
(lafs). and THAT is why we all love the English language so much!
But seriously, you can change the order of the words to make it sound better:
The affidavits were the only evidence
Yeah, I think so. when in doubt, re-word!
But seriously, you can change the order of the words to make it sound better:
The affidavits were the only evidence
That's true when you take the sentence out of context. Having not read the document I don't know if the context is important here, but perhaps the writer wants to emphasize the word "evidence" and not "affidavits."
that's also a valid point
"The only evidence were the affidavits."
"The only thing in evidence were the affidavits."
hmm; don't see any difference, or clarification in that. It won't work in context anyway, for our purposes.
I disagree with all of you - it should be is.
I remember the first time I was taught that "The group was shown round the castle" was correct. It sounded SO wrong to me.
Same with learning that "you and I" was not always correct, or that "too" can mean excessive as well as also and the letter H is properly pronounced "aitch".
It's all second nature now, but it's funny to remember how outraged I was at the time.
Interesting post and answers btw.
My brother asked me about the 'you and I/you and me' thing. I told him whatever works alone is what you use.
You and I went to the movies. (I went to the movies.)
It doesn't matter to you and me. (It doesn't matter to me.)
I hear it misused by some fairly intelligent folks.
you think "evidence' is plural?
The phrase, 'the only evidence' is not the subject of the sentence, it is a subject complement and is describing affidavits. It is actually a predicate adjective.
The phrase, 'the only evidence' is not the subject of the sentence, it is a subject complement and is describing affidavits. It is actually a predicate adjective.
:blownup:
"The only evidence were the affidavits."
"The only thing in evidence were the affidavits."
"The only
things in evidence were the affidavits." Don't plurals have to agree?
And in other news...
Pico just got 900 hotness points for being a parsing ninja
I changed it once and changed it back. I was going for a modifier using evidence as an adjective:)
>pitches college English course grades. . .
My brother asked me about the 'you and I/you and me' thing. I told him whatever works alone is what you use.
You and I went to the movies. (I went to the movies.)
It doesn't matter to you and me. (It doesn't matter to me.)
I hear it misused by some fairly intelligent folks.
Wouldn't you just say "We went to the movies" (Here 'you' and 'I' is being used as a subject.
AND
"It doesn't matter to us/either of us" (whereas here it's being used as an object and this is what determines which pronoun you use).
If I've missed the point completely (entirely possible), let me know immediately.
You've missed the point completely. ;)
Those sentences were just simple ones I came up with to make the point. No one ever has to go to the movies if they don't want to. :lol:
It's a singulare tantum, according to the plurale tantum Wikipedia page.
"This is the evidence."
"These are the evidence."
I stand corrected. Undertoad is right, singulare tantum. Evidence is "singular".
So, to reiterate:
"
The only evidence were the affidavits."
Now, to me, that's incorrect agreement between the subject and verb. If "evidence" is the subject, then it should read, "The only evidence was the affidavits."
Do you think I'm right, and it should read, "The only evidence was . . . "?
I think it is an unnecessarily awkward construction. I think your suggestion is an improvement. I think another improvement would be "The affidavits were...". That way you can marry the subject/verb agreement *and* keep the original singular evidence.
Undertoad is right, singulare tantum. Evidence is "singular".
How about "advice", I was just thinking about that word, is that plural or singluarey?
"I got lots of advice"
"I got one person's advice"
but one wouldn't say "I got a good advice from my friend"
same with "water" and "smoke"
Yeah, it would be "some good smoke" as in "damn, that was some good smoke your friend had." :D
Although I suppose you could say you want a smoke.
So, to reiterate:
"
Do you think I'm right, and it should read, "The only evidence was . . . "?
[professional linguist]Yes. [/professional linguist]
How about "advice", I was just thinking about that word, is that plural or singluarey?
"I got lots of advice"
"I got one person's advice"
but one wouldn't say "I got a good advice from my friend"
same with "water" and "smoke"
"This is my advice."
"These are my advice."
"This is the water."
"These are the water."
"This is smoke."
"These are the smoke."
In each case, these words ring singular to my ear. So, since there isn't a plural form of these words, that makes them singulare tantum. Additionally, they are examples of mass nouns. Ones that can't be quantified by a number, in contrast to collective nouns, as Cloud identified "evidence" earlier, in error I believe. I think evidence is another mass noun.
Also, in the examples quoted above, the change in subj/verb agreement was happening with the count modifier. "This is the (one)" "These are the (several)". The very fact that you attach this counter is because they're uncountable. What you are counting is not advice, it's "lots" or "person".
My brother asked me about the 'you and I/you and me' thing. I told him whatever works alone is what you use.
You and I went to the movies. (I went to the movies.)
It doesn't matter to you and me. (It doesn't matter to me.)
I hear it misused by some fairly intelligent folks.
When I leave a voice message for my wife I often start with, "Hey, it's me..."
But I wonder if it shoud be "Hey, it is I..."
Probably, but it is a causal relationship where casual created a casualty of the more formal language.
But I wonder if it shoud be "Hey, it is I..."
I call, therefore I am.
I blame it all on Janis Joplin and Kris Kristopherson.
I know. Piece of I Heart didn't help matters.
When I leave a voice message for my wife I often start with, "Hey, it's me..."
But I wonder if it shoud be "Hey, it is I..."
Either is correct, for each uses a different, and legitimate, grammatical road to reach its meaning.
"Me" is the objective case of the pronoun, the object of the verb "is."
"I" is the subject of the sentence, and the "it" is pointing towards the "I." So aside from sounding a touch Dudley Do-Right, you're all right. Which one you're going to use will depend on what subtleties of tone you want to convey.
What you wouldn't do is say, "Want to talk perfect, like I?"
Hello, it's me
I've thought about us for a long, long time
UT, was that directed toward UG or me?
Hey, look! I pulled a Dude111!!!
I'm a resurecshu--rezyuresc--I resurrected a thread!
[ATTACH]66633[/ATTACH]
A few years ago I spotted an ad in a local newspaper for a job at the Royal Grammer School, High Wycombe.
I am not making this up.
Someone needs to run the Instagram accounts for the royal family.
A few years ago I spotted an ad in a local newspaper for a job at the Royal Grammer School, High Wycombe.
I am not making this up.
Damn You AutoCorrect!
You had
ONE job!
The guy who invented autocorrect died recently, may he rust in piss.
Auto-correct changed extubation to extinction in one of my SiL's texts funny / not funny.
I'm curious if our dear friend Carruthers has much experience with AutoCorrect and, more comically, any experience at all with the stupidly funny
DYAC.
...moments later.....
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Stroke... hmm... it's probably a good thing that coxswain is pronounced "cox'n."
("Stroke! Stroke! Stroke! Stroke! . . .")
I've noticed something recently while listening to Youtube reactors and reviewers - I've only noticed it with Americans but it could also be something some do over here as well and maybe I just haven't noticed it.
When referring to a single event or moment in a show, they'll say 'whenever X character did that thing, it was great.' Where I would say 'When character X did that thing it was great.'
I've noticed it with so many different youtubers - is it a difference between American and British English, a generational thing, a regional thing?
To me "whenever X does that thing" usually implies you don't know if, or at least when, X will do it, but it's great when it happens.
If X does the thing at predictable intervals, it should be when X does that thing.
But you know these whippersnappers don't talk no good. ;)
Yeah - 'whenever he does that' suggests it's a recurring but not regular thing. 'Whenever he did that' means you are discussing all the times he did that, or are linking it to something else that occurred each time he did that.
It's like describing a scene from Titanic and starting it with 'whenever the ship finally sank'
That would vary each time they ran the film. :haha:
It's a generational thing, in my experience. I hear it far more often from under-30s than over-30s.
When Character X got off my lawn....
I'll start watching for that. To be fair, with our education system, we only have a passing familiarity with English.
Chalk it up to an adverb gone wild. Originally used for emphasis in questions, it's now used emphatically everywhere. When he did that... = At least the first time he did that. Whenever he did that... = every time he did that.
[SIZE="3"]when·ev·er[/SIZE]
adverb
[COLOR="White"]… [/COLOR]1. used for emphasis instead of “when” in questions, typically expressing surprise or confusion.
[COLOR="SlateGray"]"whenever shall we get there?"[/COLOR]
I blame Shakira's -
Whenever, Wherever - for popularizing the word leading to excessive applications in pop culture. Maybe you had to be here.
Whatever.
It's almost always bracketed by other young vocal tics, in my experience:
"Like, whenever I went to the store, or whatever? I bought one of those new mashed-avocado-in-a-cup things."
It often indicates a distinct event, whose exact timeframe isn't certain.