"There was two Mini Cooper parked in front of my house", or "there WERE two mini coopers"?

[I suspect tongue in cheek]

but anywoo ...

Nope, it isn't, Lola, although that has become a hot side topic.



'were' and 'was' in combination with existential there was the topic.

'subjunctive' and 'indicative' became another hot side topic because there was some specious stuff introduced about them.

In what way am I confused? You seem to be relying on assertions to make your case and they are all tautological for the reason already provided and, as such, complete and utter nonsense.

Can you not even understand a simple point like that?

It's the same with this tripe--



The argument depends upon the validity of the assertions. In which case there is no argument. Occasion you case in right are which every on.

What about a bloke who has a Mini Cooper parked on his drive and is seeing double when the taxi drops him off from a night out?

Would he be correct in telling his wife that there was two Mini Coopers on the drive when she asked him if he was alright?

That should be,

Here's a classic, fresco--





Now you are being really disingenuous, Spendi. Unbelievably so. Right after I quoted a source which illustrated just how out to lunch you were/are on this issue, you pull this cheap stunt.



Not to worry, Spendi, they're getting it. And unlike you, they're bright enough to keep their mouths shut to prevent further embarrassment to themselves.



Not all, Spendi.

You would be surprised at the number of the world's best minds who are completely befuddled by how language works. If that weren't so then these outlandish prescriptions wouldn't have persisted.



Back to your cheap tricks.

But, there weren't really two. There was only one.

Blurry or not, Roger, if he saw two, then the question is, what is the plural of mini cooper? No matter if there was only one. Side topic or not. Metaphysical or not. Existential or not.

Unless there were three.........then, well the question would still be the same.

Have you ever actually tried to teach kids ? I HAVE ! How many of them do you think have the brains and maturity to understand the difference between "appropriateness" and "correctness" given that most of the adult population (including some respondents on this thread) don't have a clue ? How many understand a concept of social convergence for functional purposes ? Think it out...the one's who do have that intellectual ability are the one's who can change register according to context. The rest need to be given a "survival kit" called "standard English" which will do the job.

What goes on here is that questions are asked, usually by non-native speakers for a "quick-fix" decision on usage. It is the responsibility of respondents to give them a "best policy" answer, rather than engage in academic extrapolation over the range of nuances we call sociolinguistics.

Explosionshurt, in a risible augural post

There's letters seal'd: and my two schoolfellows, Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd, They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way And marshal me to knavery. Let it work; For 'tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his own petar; and 't shall go hard But I will delve one yard below their mines And blow them at the moon: O, 'tis most sweet, When in one line two crafts directly meet.

fresco--with your experience of teaching kids do you think that you might be able to explain to JTT that using assertions to make arguments is the epitome of anti-intellectual vulgarity by the side of which all else in language usage is pure clarity.

I can't.

Yes, I have, Fresco, no capitals needed.



In the limited, and "incorrect" sense you're thinking of not many, considering they are, what else, kids.

That a large chunk of the adult population doesn't have a clue really ought to clue you in. This is the same nonsense that POM [an English teacher at the college level] was ranting about - "kids don't know the subject of a sentence" - like they should be born knowing things that adults themselves are confused about, things POM herself [and all her teacher peers] are mightily confused about.

You keep putting quotes around correctness because you do realize that you're making a partially fatuous argument, the same one that has been made for centuries.



Precisely what I described above. It's you, Fresco, that has to think it out. Kids have no problem recognizing polite language, nor do they have any trouble deploying it should they see the need.

It is completely fatuous to suggest that only Standard English contains the grammatical structures and collocations that are the measures of politeness. It is part and parcel of the same cockamamie notion that holds to the notion that Standard English is correct/grammatical while Nonstandard English is incorrect/ ungrammatical, even, even colloquial.

[Did you read my reply to Dale Hileman on this very issue?]

I will agree with you, as I suspect that this might be your next argument, that kids are less likely to show the degree of deference that they did in past generations, but that has nothing to do with silly notions that Standard English will set them on the straight and narrow.



You really can't begin to imagine, wedded as you are to these ideas of yours, how many times I've heard that bit of nonsense over the years, Fresco.

How is it at all responsible to continue the lie that Standard English is the best policy? It's not at all what we native speakers use for the vast majority of our own language.

Why should ESLs be prevented from having the same full range as native speakers? ESLs have to know the nuances of language in order to to be able to gain an understanding of language? How can such fundamental idea as this escape so many?

Of course they should be given accurate information as to how the English language really works, and that most certainly includes the caveat that there are a lot of people in positions of power who will attempt to lord their ignorance on language over people for spurious reasons.

All the best grammars of the day, all the best second language experts, all the top linguists, all the top corpus studies recognize this as the only sensible way to proceed no matter who is being taught a language or about a language.

The information described in the paragraph above has been posted numerous times here at A2K, and it illustrates just how deeply ingrained these nonsensical ideas about language are.

You really think Fresco is going to come to your aid. You have such a selective, short memory, Spendi.

Your contributions on Frank's question whether the indicative 'was' or the subjunctive form 'were' was appropriate in one of Adrian/Rebecca's comments were laughable.

Whenever you have contributed to any discussion on the hows of language, your contributions have been, shall we say, unproductive.

Your usual absence on discussions of the whys and wherefores of language tells us all we need to know.

Hey, how come Shakespeare doesn't know grammar?

He invented it.

That's cute, Roger, ... no really, I mean it, but I seem to recall you registering a complaint that the issues were not being addressed.

You are probably thinking of the thread involving an assignment to find three nouns in a sentence. "The teacher is an idiot" was not a responsive answer.

In this thread, I simply noted the reason for the popularity of a2k as a source of grammatical knowledge.

By the way, joefromchicago was wrong. Mini is clearly an adjective modifying cooper, which would be a very small barrel maker.

Not at all. I simply thought he might come to yours as I have proved unable to help you break the obviously ingrained habit of attempting to validate anything using assertions. Four of which appear in your post.

Sorry--five.

So, how does language work, JTT?

Ouch - my head hurts! So many words!!!

There WERE two Mini Coopers parked in front of my house - amen!