Reply
Wed 12 Dec, 2007 09:03 pm
A non-native speaker wrote the following.
Although 'everyone' means 'all the people', a singular verb has to be used.
Every apple is rotten.
Every one of the apples is rotten.
Every one of my friends is helpful.
Everyone is helpful.
Everybody is helpful.
As long as you see 'every' in a sentence the verb in such constructions has to be singular.
A native speaker replied as follows:
Correct. Assuming you are a teacher, I'm wondering if you have a way of explaining to your students what you have said here and then using a plural pronoun (they) to refer to the singular antecedent. I can't explain it to my own native logic.
Could someone please explain what the above sentence means, especially the part in bold?
Many thanks.
tough one yoong.
When we use "every" we form the objects into a group. Because we are being all inclusive of the objects the (plural) objects become a single group.
We are now refering to a single group. ie one singular group which means the verb used must be singular.
Is that helpfull?
Hi Dadpad
I know the usage of 'everybody' being followed by a singular verb.
What I don't understand is the following which is the second part of the post. I don't understand the last part of the native speaker's reply.
A native speaker replied as follows:
Correct. Assuming you are a teacher, I'm wondering if you have a way of explaining to your students what you have said here and then using a plural pronoun (they) to refer to the singular antecedent. I can't explain it to my own native logic.
Could someone please explain what the above sentence means, especially the part in bold?
Many thanks.
It is not a very good sentence, not clear and not very grammatical, and it is not worth breaking it down.
It is discussing an interesting point though, and it reminds me of "none is/ none are"
as in "None but the brave deserve the fair"
Which shows "none" meaning "not one, no-one" can take a plural verb.
Quote:Correct. Assuming you are a teacher, I'm wondering if you have a way of explaining to your students what you have said here and then using a plural pronoun (they) to refer to the singular antecedent. I can't explain it to my own native logic
This might well refer to the grammatical "trick" of using "They" to refer back to male or female (instead of saying "him or her")
example
"If anyone would like to go to the pub later,
they can meet me in the carpark or I'll see
them inside."
Correct. Assuming you are a teacher, I'm wondering if you have a way of explaining to your students what you have said here....
That seems simple enough
and then using a plural pronoun such as "they" to refer to the singular (preceeding...? word? noun? verb? (this is unclear) ). I can't explain it to my own satisfaction.
Hi Dadpad
I think Mc Tag's interpretation is correct.
Best wishes
Every apple is rotten. They are all rotten.
Every one of the apples is rotten. they are all rotten
Every one of my friends is helpful. They are all helpful
Cant' do that with:
Everyone is helpful.
Everybody is helpful.
Everyone is not the same as Every one.
Everyone is plural, but is a singular unit, so "is" is used.
Re: meaning of sentence
Yoong Liat wrote:
As long as you see 'every' in a sentence the verb in such constructions has to be singular.
A native speaker replied as follows:
Correct. Assuming you are a teacher, I'm wondering if you have a way of explaining to your students what you have said here and then using a plural pronoun (they) to refer to the singular antecedent. I can't explain it to my own native logic.
Could someone please explain what the above sentence means, especially the part in bold?
Many thanks.
YL,
It means that the native speaker is wondering how the person [assuming the person is a teacher] will be able to explain how a singular construction can be referred to using the seemingly plural pronoun 'they'. The native speaker can't understand it him/herself.
Thanks, JTT.
The native speaker must have been joking. Do you agree? If I, a non-native can, why can't he?
I dont believe he (the native speaker) was joking.
often we learn things by rote, (my parents and friends say it). Rather than following the rules of grammer.
An analogy is that many can rive a car yet not know how it's intricate details enable them to do so.
Hi Dadpad
I agree with you. Now I understand why the native speaker said that. I'm a non-native speaker and rely a lot on English usage books. Now my English will continue to improve with the help of native speakers from Ask2know forum.
Many thanks.
Yoong Liat wrote:Thanks, JTT.
The native speaker must have been joking. Do you agree? If I, a non-native can, why can't he?
No, I doubt that that person was joking, YL. As dadpad said, the power of prescriptions is strong and the vast majority of native speakers don't consciously understand the grammar that they use.
They can actually memorize and even consciously believe in the prescriptions but these "rules" make no difference to actual language use because they aren't really natural rules of English.
Hi JTT
Could you give me example/s why these "rules" make no difference to actual language use because they aren't really natural rules of English?
Many thanks.
Yoong Liat wrote:Hi JTT
Could you give me example/s why these "rules" make no difference to actual language use because they aren't really natural rules of English?
Many thanks.
Here's an article, YL, that's actually a chapter from the book, The Language Instinct. In it, Professor Pinker dismantles a number of these artificial rules/prescriptions. It'll take some time to read an digest but it'll be well worth your while.
++++++++++++++++++
Grammar Puss by Steven Pinker
http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace