Why singular verb?

No reason. It is an error. The form of the verb must match that of the object, singular/singular or plural/plural

What constitutes (singular) a well written paper? (singular)

What constitute (plural) real riches (plural) in life?

What constitute (plural) charities? (plural)

Quote:

Verb entries constitute an essential part of the lexicon

Quote:

'Singlemindedness and a desire to win' constitute a plural subject.

Quote:

Since verbs systematically represent relationships between their arguments (participants in the relationship designated by the verb), they constitute the single best linguistic data source for identifying and characterizing relationships.

0 Replies

Actually, it doesn't sound wrong to me.

The course aims to give students an understanding of what constitutes core ways of conceptualising globalization and globality.

"An understanding" is singular, so the verb would match and it does.

JMO

0 Replies

I cannot agree. The verb must be plural to match its objects, "the ways of conceptualising globalization..."

You could use 'are', but not 'is' in place of "constitute".

In fact you could delete "what constitute(s)" altogether without depriving the sentence of any meaning whatsoever.

As if the sentence were not already bad enough, it displays a crass inconsistency between "conceptualising" (BrE -ising with an 's') and "globalization" (AmE -ization with a 'z')

0 Replies

Mame wrote:

Actually, it doesn't sound wrong to me.

I think the reason it doesn't sound wrong is because it is a common error, but it is still an error. We wouldn't use the singular form if the verb were "to be" (i.e. we wouldn't say "what is core ways"), so we shouldn't use the singular form when the verb is "to constitute."

EDIT: Sorry for the repeat information... Contrex beat me to it. 8)

0 Replies

Shapeless wrote:

Sorry for the repeat information... Contrex beat me to it. 8)

Great minds think alike. (And yes, folks, I do know the customary reply!)

Shapeless, you NEVER need to apologise for agreeing with me!

Seriously, it's always nice to have backup...

0 Replies

Actually, I'm with Mame. The way that "constitute" sounds right in this sentence is to recast it:

The course aims to give students an understanding of what the core ways of conceptualizing globalization and globality constitute.

I wouldn't say "constitutes" in this construction, but when it follows directly after "what," "constitutes" sounds correct to me... What constitutes the number of ways we can mangle the English languate?!?

0 Replies

The original sentence is perfectly grammatically correct. It's gobbledygook, certainly, but grammatically correct (though I agree that the spelling should be more consistent).

In the phrase "what constitutes", "what" has the sense "what thing", which is singular, and therefore the verb must be singular also.

0 Replies

Quote:

"what" has the sense "what thing", which is singular, and therefore the verb must be singular also

I disagree. The remainder of the sentence makes it clear that "what" has the sense of "what things"; hence, it would take the plural verb. It's the same difference between "What is the problem?" and "What are the problems?" Whether "what" refers to a singular or plural quantity is determined by the rest of the sentence.

If the verb were changed to "to be" (or any other verb), would you continue to use the singular form? Would you write, "The course aims to give students an understanding of what is core ways of conceptualising globalization and globality"?

0 Replies

syntinen wrote:

The original sentence is perfectly grammatically correct. It's gobbledygook, certainly, but grammatically correct (though I agree that the spelling should be more consistent).

In the phrase "what constitutes", "what" has the sense "what thing", which is singular, and therefore the verb must be singular also.

wrong!

These figures constitute a good sales month.

That figure constitutes a good sales month.

It constitutes, it wants, it gets
I constitute, I want, I get.

0 Replies

I see you've come around to the point of view espoused by me and Shapeless, Mame.

Syntinen, surely asking "what thing" constitutes (or makes) core ways of conceptualising etc implies that there is only one "thing" that does so?

Please if possible fault the following reasoning:

If we can substitute the verb phrase "to be made of" for "to constitute", then we would write or say

What is a good jam made of? Good quality fruit, careful selection of ingredients., proper preparation.

What are good jams made of?

Also, I got "What Constitute Charities?" was the title of a paper from the Harvard Law Review.

0 Replies

I think when "what" is used in contexts like this it's usually at least subconsciously thought of as a singular thing, and here "What" is in fact the subject of the sentence, with which the verb has to agree. I checked the dictionary (Webster's New Collegiate) and they're not specific about it, but their definition too tends to make "what" seem singular, no matter what comes after it:

"Pron...--used as an interrogative expressing inquiry about the identity, nature, or value of AN OBJECT or matter" (emphasis added).

In other words, it has the sense of singularity, even if you have mention several things after the verb.

It's like "The essence of democracy is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Not "The essence of democracy are..." What's before the verb is more important in determining its number than what's after it.

0 Replies

I daresay that "what" is often thought of as a singular thing, but that thought may well be an erroneous one. It can be (surely this ought to be obvious?) either singular or plural.

What are the top four French cheeses? Port Salut, Comté, Roquefort, Brie.

What is the top French cheese? Port Salut.

What is the first letter of the alphabet?

What are the letters of the alphabet?

This confusion is avoided in French.

Quelles sont les pédagogies efficaces ?

Quelle est la place des citoyens dans la vie des collectivités ?

0 Replies

Quote:

It's like "The essence of democracy is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Not "The essence of democracy are..." What's before the verb is more important in determining its number than what's after it.

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" constitute a composite singular item, surely, because an "essence" is a singular thing, so aren't you indulging in circular reasoning?

Fish and chips is a favourite British meal.

0 Replies

username wrote:

and here "What" is in fact the subject of the sentence

I don't believe it is. There are two clauses in the sentence: in the first clause, the subject is The course, for which the verb is aims; in the second clause, the subject is core ways of conceptualising globalization and globality (or, if we were to get rid of the modifiers and such, ways), for which the verb is constitute. And as you mentioned, the subject and verb must agree, so that is why constitute should be in plural form. In this sentence, what functions as a conjunction joining the two clauses because it has the meaning "that which," and conjunctions do not determine the type of verb.

0 Replies

No. What is a pronoun and it's the subject. "To be" is a special case, neither transitive nor intransitive (I seem to remember it being "copulative", but somehow I don't think that's correct), in that what comes after the verb is often the same thing as whatever comes before it, expressed differently, but it is not the direct object. And the subject is still what comes before the verb.

0 Replies

Hmm, it may well be copulative, since it joins two things together as one. Jeez, copulation on the page--here now, "Is", you just stop that, that's indecent. Grammar as XXX-rated activity.

0 Replies

Quote:

No. What is a pronoun and it's the subject.

It seems to be functioning in this sentence as a subordinating conjunction is supposed function. If it is the subject, then what is core ways?

And the question remains: would you ever write "what is core ways of conceptualizing"? I can't see a justification for using the singular form of the verb in one case but not another.

EDIT: Sorry, username... I'm only now realizing the context of your comments about the copulative nature (so to speak) of "to be." I would still be interested to know, however, how one would grammatically analyze core way if we assume that it is not the subject of the clause.

0 Replies

Why singular verb?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know