I don't think some / any of the boys have green shirts

@perennialloner,

perennialloner wrote:

Have is inconsequential in this type of construction because it's do/does that gives a suggestion as to the number of people involved in a given sentence. I think that's what camlok was getting at.

No, that's not what he was getting at. Furthermore, neither "does" or "have" is "inconsequential" they simply go together for purposes of agreement. One doesn't "determine" the other, nor can either be omitted because it is "inconsequential."

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

"Do" and "does" are not simply interchangeable.

When did you figure this out, layman?

0 Replies

@perennialloner,

Quote:

In this way, I think it could be said that do/does marks for number.

"Does" marks for grammatical number.

1 Reply

@layman,

You're simply piling layman BS on top of things you obviously don't understand, layman.

The singular auxiliary verbs 'does/is' and the negative forms "doesn't/isn't" are used with singular nouns and pronouns.

layman [he] doesn't know much about English.
Perennial [she] knows more about English than layman.
It doesn't rain much in Patagonia.

0 Replies

Well obviously have has a purpose but what you said about it was inconsequential. i should've been more precise.

0 Replies

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

Quote:
In this way, I think it could be said that do/does marks for number.

"Does" marks for grammatical number.

No, wrong.

Do they have a pencil?
Does he have a pencil?

It is "he" and "they" which "mark the number," not "does," or "do."

"He" in not singular ONLY because you used "does." It is the REVERSE: you use "does," only because "he" is INHERENTLY singular.

I'll concede that I spoke too hastily when saying that "anyone" in not singular, but that was just a secondary statement when addressing this erroneous contention of yours.

1 Reply

@layman,

M-W
Definition of does
present tense third-person singular of do
=============
Oxford
does
third person singular present of do

0 Replies

Quote:

Any one is a term that means any single object or person. It is generally not listed in dictionaries except perhaps to distinguish the differences with anyone.

Anyone is a pronoun that indicates any person. It is used when there are no qualifications to the grouping. Something could belong to anyone if there are no distinguishing marks or unique factors.

http://grammarist.com/spelling/anyone-or-any-one/

I guess that's what I was getting at with the difference between any one, and anyone.

You would ask "Do any one of you have a pencil.

But you would ask "Does (not do) anyone have a pencil?"

There's a difference.

"Anyone" is an indefinite pronoun.

Quote:

We often use the plural pronoun they to refer back to (singular) anyone when we do not know if the person is male or female:

If anyone would like further information about the dogs, they should call Canine Rescue on 0502 75257.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/anyone-anybody-or-anything

And it wouldn't have to be only the gender which was unknown--that could apply to anything, so there is some commingling of singular and plural going one.

1 Reply

@layman,

'any one' was not mentioned anywhere until this last post of yours.

That it took you that long to come to this confused conclusion simply illustrates that you are a language boob.

That you still haven't apologized for being so wrong/out to lunch illustrates your basic dishonesty.

2 Replies

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

'any one' was not mentioned anywhere until this last post of yours.

layman wrote:

You could instead ask "Do any of you have a pencil," but that's not the phrasing in issue here.

Sure I did. The "one" was simply omitted because it was implied. I wasn't asking about any two of you.

0 Replies

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

That you still haven't apologized for being so wrong/out to lunch illustrates your basic dishonesty.

I basically conceded that I was wrong about one thing. No apology required, and no dishonesty involved.

YOU, on the other hand, have refused to acknowledge that you were just plain WRONG about "does" being a "number marker.'

layman wrote:

Does he have a pencil?...It is "he" which "marks the number," not "does" ... He" in not singular ONLY because you used "does." It is the REVERSE: you use "does," only because "he" is INHERENTLY singular.

Aint that right, Cammie-boy?

0 Replies

@perennialloner,

Quote:

Anyone is grammatically singular but you is grammatically plural, or maybe it's more accurate to say you, like I, conjugates in the plural form even when referring to just one person.

First of all, I don't agree that "you" is (necessarily) grammatically plural. But let's leave that aside, for now, at least.

What does it even mean to say something "conjugates in the plural form even when referring to just one person.?"

My offhand response to that assertion would be that if a particular conjugation applies to a singular person, then that conjugation is not "the plural form."

It appears to me that you may once again be arguing just for the sake of arguing. Your assertions don't make any real sense to me.

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

First of all, I don't agree that "you" is (necessarily) grammatically plural. But let's leave that aside, for now, at least.

Coming back to this:

If I were questioning you, and you alone, about only you, when I ask: "Do you have a TV?," is the "you" plural? My answer would be "no."

If I were asking you about the possessions of all your neighbors when I ask: Do they have a TV (or TV's),?" is "they" singular? Again, my answer would be "no."

If "do" (as opposed to "does") is used properly in either case (as I think it is), then how can you associate "do" exclusively with a plural form?

The same question could be posed with respect to the word "have." You have/they have would be correct--not either "you has," or "they has."

1 Reply

@layman,

I don't have some vendetta against you. Earlier you made a statement that is wholly untrue. Let's leave alone whether "does" marks for number right now because it's not that important for showing why you are wrong.

You suggested that HAS in the sentence was wrong because of an implicit reference to a group. But that is not why HAS is wrong. When I saw this I didn't intervene because I knew we'd argue but when camlok made me realize that of course conjugation occurs in the auxiliary verb, I decided to step in.

Depending on the noun or pronoun in a sentence, verbs are conjugated differently. In a language like Arabic, all pronouns conjugate differently in, say, the simple present, but in English pronouns are conjugated into one of two forms--singular and plural.

Example verb: keep

I keep
she/he keeps
you keep
we keep
they keep

Keep is the plural form and keeps is the singular form.

Similarly it could be said that do is the plural form and does is the singular form, hence marking for number. (That's how I took it.)

Because anyone is grammatically singular, does instead of do must be used, because do is the plural form. That's my analysis at least.

Any one of you is not grammatically singular.

When you said the sentence needs HAVE not HAS because of an implicit reference to a group. That was wrong. If anything, the sentence needs DOES not DO because anyone is grammatically singular.

0 Replies

@layman,

I don't know if you is considered grammatically plural. That's why I said it's probably more accurate to say you, like I, are followed by verbs that conjugate into plural forms.

That's why we say I have, you have, and they have instead of I has, you has, and they have.

This doesn't mean I and you mean more than one person. It's just how they're conjugated. As you said before, the pronoun makes it clear the number of people involved, but subject verb agreement is a thing.

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking me to explain at this point.

1 Reply

@perennialloner,

Quote:

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking me to explain at this point.

As I think I've said before, I have never "studied" grammar, and I don't ever care to. I tend to look for "sensible" explanations, even if there are none.

Merely saying that something is "grammatically singular," in itself, explains NOTHING--it merely states a rule, without providing any rationale for the rule. It may be that there is no real "rational" explanation and it's just an arbitrary rule.

Still, I would never say that a rule (or "form") that applies to both singular and plural contexts is a "plural form." Nor would I say it's a "singular form." I would simply say it is a form that can be used with either. A singular AND plural form, if you wish.

1 Reply

@layman,

Sorry, then. I think it's perfectly fine to say it's both plural and singular.

I only brought that up because you suggested that have is needed because of the implicit reference to a group. In saying so you implied that have is plural. I was showing that you and I, which are not plural, can conjugate to have, which you implied was plural.

I think camlok thought you'd understand that if something's grammatically singular, an implicit reference to a group wouldn't change the verb form--has to have like you suggested.

1 Reply

@perennialloner,

perennialloner wrote:

I only brought that up because you suggested that have is needed because of the implicit reference to a group. In saying so you implied that have is plural. I was showing that you and I, which are not plural, can conjugate to have, which you implied was plural.

See, I don't think you paid much attention to what I've said. For one thing, I've conceded that, according to the (unfathomable) "rules" the word "anyone" is grammatically singular (contrary to what I suggested earlier). Did you see that?

I have also said that "have" is not "plural," it is (or can be) BOTH singular AND plural: "I have/They have" are both proper, but they're not both plural.

Underlying all that is the point that singulariy versus plurality does NOT seem to be the distinguishing factor, so it must be something else.

1 Reply

@layman,

You implied it was plural when i first responded to you. I was explaining where my thought process came from because you quoted something I said a while ago.

Peace. We're never gonna see eye to eye.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Furthermore, neither "does" or "have" is "inconsequential" they simply go together for purposes of agreement.

They go together for purposes of grammatical number. That is the whole issue and all your red herrings don't count for anything except to illustrate you don't know grammar from the place you store your head.

1 Reply

I don't think some / any of the boys have green shirts

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know