Periods Meeting Quotes

I think "was" is correct. The poor girl was short, fat, spotty, etc etc.

Why does it make "much more sense", Frank?

While we're waiting for those experts to arrive, Frank, why not explain to Aidan the problem you see with 'was', above, in bold?

I think "was" is correct. The poor girl was short, fat, spotty, etc etc.

And then there'd even be more nuance and differentiation depending upon if your speaker was white, black, hispanic, a debutante, etc., etc...you see what I'm sayin'? It's not as easy as it seems. You really need to observe and listen carefully.

I agree, Aidan.

I would like, however, to ask the "experts" here about your use of "was" in that sentence.

EXPERTS: Is "was" correct...is "were" the proper verb...or are both correct?

Either you do not think it does...or you have a reason for thinking it does and think I cannot come up with one.

That is precious! I love it.

Frank A: In either case, "there are a few steamers over there" makes much more sense than "there is a few steamers over there."

Tell us if there is anything wrong with the "was." It has a wrong sound to my ear,

but that may be because I was taught grammar way back in the Stone Age.

Actually, after re-reading the sentence I think it would have sounded better to use the present tense 'is' and then we'd have avoided the question altogether, but in any case, in my opinion it can be either- and I found this to back it up (in case Frank doesn't think I'm expert enough):

The were form is correct at all times.
The was form is possible in informal, familiar conversation.

Examples:
If I were younger, I would go. If I was younger, I would go.
If he weren't so mean, he would buy one for me. If he wasn't so mean, he would buy one for me.
I wish I weren't so slow! I wish I wasn't so slow!
I wish it were longer. I wish it was longer.
It's not as if I were ugly. It's not as if I was ugly.
She acts as if she were Queen. She acts as if she was Queen.

Here's the link if you want to learn more:
http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-subjunctive.htm

URL: http://able2know.org/reply/topic-192912

September 09, 2006

18TH-CENTURY GRAMMARIANS VS. SHAKESPEARE ET AL.

I got back early this week from a conference on World Englishes at the Mekrijärvi Research Station of the University of Joensuu, Finland, just 30 km. from the Russian border. As with most conferences, the papers ranged from terrific to uninspiring. One of the best talks was Terttu Nevalainen's, on "Default Singulars with Existentials in the Normative Eighteenth Century" -- specifically, on the use of singular there is and there was with plural noun phrases, as in there has been great Benefits (from ca. 1755).

Faithful readers of Language Log will be intrigued by one particular comment Prof. Nevalainen made during her presentation. She said that, in a 1991 survey of 200 18th-century prescriptive grammarians' works, the following authors and works were most commonly cited as sources of errors (not quite in this order): the New Testament, Shakespeare, the Old Testament, Pope, Dryden, Swift, Addison, and The Spectator. (Prof. Nevalainen's source was Bertil Sundby, Anne Kari Bjørk, and Kari E. Haugland, A Dictionary of English Normative Grammar, London: Longman.)

So now we know, those of us who might have had doubts about it: the horrors of non-agreement denounced by the 18th-century grammarians was perpetrated by some of the greatest writers in the history of the English language. If we adopt an all-too-common mode of reasoning, we can conclude that if we does the same, we too can achieve the status of Great Writer of English. As someone else cited by Prof. Nevalainen wrote in 1800, there is some small hopes of that.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003563.html

If the subjunctive mood is being used,
then I must change my answer because "WERE" is appropriate.

Thanks, Spendius. But I was looking for an opinion from an expert.

Hey JTT. Still at it. And going nowhere.

I like your tenacity, though...and I compliment you on it.

Ummm...I didn't realize they had English grammar "right" during the Stone Age. Ya learn all sorts of things in A2K.

Death of the Queen's English Society

June 6, 2012 @ 3:47 am · Filed by Geoffrey K. Pullum under Prescriptivist poppycock, Silliness, Usage advice, Writing, coordination, passives


The Queen's English Society (QES), mentioned only a couple of times here on Language Log over the past few years, is no more. It has ceased to be. On the last day of this month they will ring down the curtain and it will join the choir invisible. It will be an ex-society. Said Rhea Williams, chairman of QES, in a letter to the membership of which I have seen a facsimile copy:
At yesterday's SGM there were 22 people present, including the 10 members of your committee. Three members had sent their apologies. Not a very good showing out of a membership of 560 plus!

Time was spent discussing what to do about QES given the forthcoming resignations of so many committee members. Despite the sending out of a request for nominations for chairman, vice-chairman, administrator, web master, and membership secretary no one came forward to fill any role. So I have to inform you that QES will no longer exist. There will be one more Quest then all activity will cease and the society will be wound up. The effective date will be 30th June 2012

(Quest is the society's magazine.) Is this a sad day for defenders of English? Not in my view. I don't think it was a serious enterprise at all. I don't think the members cared about what they said they cared about. And I will present linguistic evidence for this thesis.

First, let's look at the seven sentences of the letter above in the light of the usual kind of judgmental prescriptivism that the members of QES always purported to care about (and keep in mind here that in some cases I am applying what prescriptive authorities generally say, not endorsing it):

At yesterday's SGM there were 22 people present, including the 10 members of your committee. [The existential construction ("there is/are/was/were") is condemned by Strunk and White (page 18) as weak writing, to be avoided.]
Three members had sent their apologies. [Not clear why "had" is included to make a past perfect where a preterite would have been perfectly correct and appropriate. Omit needless words!]
Not a very good showing out of a membership of 560 plus! [This is a fragment: it has no main verb.]
Time was spent discussing what to do about QES given the forthcoming resignations of so many committee members. [This is an agentless passive, condemned by Strunk and by Orwell and by writing tutors and prescriptivists everywhere.]
Despite the sending out of a request for nominations for chairman, vice-chairman, administrator, web master, and membership secretary no one came forward to fill any role. [This is also evasive about agency: who sent out the request?]
So I have to inform you that QES will no longer exist. [This begins with a "conjunction".]
There will be one more Quest then all activity will cease and the society will be wound up. [Ungrammatical because of punctuation: a comma or semicolon is needed after "Quest". And as a magazine title, Quest should properly have been italicized. The last clause is another agency-avoiding passive.]
The effective date will be 30th June 2012 [Ungrammatical because of punctuation again: the final period has been carelessly omitted.]

Thanks, Spendius. But I was looking for an opinion from an expert.