Should "get" be "gets" here?

Forums: English
Email this Topic • Print this Page

If the title in the context below meant "Wall St. and Housing Sector Get Warning Shot", then using get is right. But it seems no that case.
In addition, what is teh exact meaning of "warning shot"? Does it mean the warning is "an attempt to hit a target with a projectile"?

Context:

Wall St., Housing Sector Get Warning Shot

Sat January 31, 2004 08:36 AM ET
(Page 1 of 2)
By Dick Satran

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Federal Reserve's warning shot was fired with such a muffled tone there might have been a silencer on the weapon -- but Wall Street got the message just the same.

The Fed said it "can be patient" about raising interest rates but decided it could no longer say it would hold rates down "for a considerable period."

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=Q253EFHP4SLJECRBAE0CFEY?type=businessNews&storyID=4254726

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,083 • Replies: 17

No top replies

It's plural -- "Wall Street and Housing Sector" -- so "get" is fine.

A warning shot is one that is NOT meant to hit someone, but is meant to scare them and let them know that you are serious. A message, as the text says.

0 Replies

A warning shot - literally - means firing a weapon, not to hit the target, but to miss it deliberately, while demonstrating the ability and the intent to hit it if the warning is not heeded.

0 Replies

I thought it was a singular rather than a plural. I.e. it's the Housing Sector of Wall St that has had the warning shot.

0 Replies

"Warning shot" has been well explained by sozobe and dlowan. But the question of "get vs gets" still remains in puzzle.

0 Replies

Usually singular nouns get a plural verb & plural nouns get a singular verb.

"Betty & Suzy get to go."
"They get to go."
"Suzy gets to go."
"She gets to go."

More detailed info here: www.4-esl.com/Grammar/Intermediate/nouns2.htm

As sozobe said, "Wall St., Housing Sector Get Warning Shot" would be better written as "Wall St. and Housing Sector..."

The word "and" was dropped in order to shorten the headline.

0 Replies

Thanks Monger, I've browsed the content in the link you offered, and will carefully read it again.

***********************************************************
Here I got another puzzle:

"What the Fed did was completely change the dynamic for the outlook on stocks," said Peter Boockvar, equity strategist for Miller Tabak & Co. "There was this fantasy-land mentality that rates could stay low forever."

I felt "change" should be "changing"; or using " "...was to completely change the dynamic..."
What is your opinion?

0 Replies

Hey, what I understood was that "housing sector" is part of "Wall St.", so I had that question. Now it seems "housing sector" is NOT the part of "Wall St." , according your opinions. So the question has been cleared up now.

0 Replies

oristarA wrote:

Here I got another puzzle:

"What the Fed did was completely change the dynamic for the outlook on stocks," said Peter Boockvar, equity strategist for Miller Tabak & Co...

I felt "change" should be "changing"; or using "...was to completely change the dynamic..."
What is your opinion?

Nah, the original version was correct.
"What the Fed did was changing the dynamic..." and "What the Fed did was to comletely change the dynamic..." are both incorrect. One thing that might be confusing you is the use of the word "dynamic" here. It's being used as a noun, not as an adjective.

0 Replies

Hi Monger, I knew "dynamic" here is a noun, which means "a force, especially political, social, or psychological" .

If change were a noun too, I think the sentence could be easily understood if the sentence were:

"What the Fed did was completely change of the dynamic for the outlook on stocks"

Obviously, I didn't get such a grammatical structure.

0 Replies

Nope. That doesn't work either, and the original is correct. But I'm no expert with English grammer, so I'll have to leave it to someone else to explain why.

0 Replies

Okay, I am really confused by the structure of the sentence.

0 Replies

Sad, no one would like to explain this simple example in English grammar. Sad

****************************
PS.

Hi Monger, I have an idea to crack the puzzle:

Could you please rewrite the sentence for me? That is, even though it seems impossible that you can rewrite the sentence better than the original writer did, but I will be inspired by your rewriting -- esp. when you rewrite it with simpler and plainer grammar.
Thanks.

0 Replies

Quote:

"What the Fed did was completely change the dynamic for the outlook on stocks," said Peter Boockvar, equity strategist for Miller Tabak & Co...

A few examples of how it could be rewritten...

The Fed completely changed the dynamic of the outlook on stocks. (This one is the simplest)
Stocks' outlook's dynamic was completely changed by the Fed.
The complete change of the dynamic of the outlook on stocks was the doing of the Fed.
Following is what the Fed did: completely change the dynamic of the outlook on stocks.
Q: "What did the Fed do?" A: "Completely change the dynamic of the outlook on stocks."

Those last two should help explain the original's structure.

0 Replies

Thanks Monger.

I've got clear picture from your rewritings. And I thought the rewritings are as the same meaning as what I've posted:
"What the Fed did was completely change of the dynamic for the outlook on stocks" (change is a noun here) :wink:

0 Replies

No problem. Glad to help. Smile

But, um, change is a verb in the original quote & all the examples I gave. Wink

"Completely" is an adverb. "Complete," on the other hand, is an adjective and would be the correct word choice if "change" was being used as a noun, which it wasn't.

"Completely change of the dynamic" is grammatically incorrect.

0 Replies

Hehe, you know dear Monger, "was + the original shape of a verb" = a weird grammar that freaks me out. :wink:

0 Replies

I suspect that the writer has treated "completely change the dynamic for the outlook on stocks" as an idea -- an indissociable element.

So he wrote:

What the Fed did was completely change the dynamic for the outlook on stocks

The structure didn't work in grammar theory perfectly, but it would work in practice. That is it! Linguists might explain: it is just an idiomatic usage. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Should "get" be "gets" here?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know