Fine-Tuning, 2: It/They

Good morning, Roberta. You are correct. I misread the entire thread.

The crux of your "fine tuning" had to do with pronoun and antecedent, but it's still a matter of agreement. Quite frankly, in subsequent sentences and for clear communication purposes, I would always repeat the noun.

The committee passed a new resolution. Each member was in agreement with the new changes. This sentence is clearer than using either it/they.

Often, I think we get caught up in the rules and regulations and forget that languages are tools of communication. Rather than have my students memorize the class of nouns considered collective, etc. I tried to get them to reconstruct the sentence for smoothness and clarity.

There have been many attempts to change the approach of the science of grammar, one of which was transformational. Good grief! What a walrus. Smile

0 Replies

Letty, Yes, we're still talking about agreement. And, yes, the purpose of language is communication--clarity first.

The issues I raised in this thread are problems and mistakes I encounter frequently in my work. Since the authors of all the books I edit are college graduates, I have to assume that other educated people make the same mistakes.

You have a daunting task--teaching writing, teaching English. I'm just trying to decrease the number of common errors I see. I'm not a teacher, so I don't know what you mean when you say that the approach was "transformational." Please enlighten me. I can't imagine what that is.

0 Replies

Glad to see a group that believes in upholding standards! I refer, of course, to the "fewer" vs "less" issue. Linguistic barbarism may grow stronger every day--let's continue to fight the good fight!

0 Replies

I'm no teacher, too, Roberta, but I think, Letty is referring to Chomly's "transformational-generative grammar", which is "an attempt to define the grammatical rules underlying all of the surface expression of language."

0 Replies

Yes, Walter is correct. Trees of derivation. Lord, folks. I too believe in timeless standards, but let's face it. Language is dynamic and by being purists, we slam the door on beauty. Even the great stone face of New Hampshire fell into the dust and it has been suggested that it be reconstructed. Shocked

Williamsburg of Virginia has been an attempt to restore what once was. Apoxy and duct tape? Now what I have written here is not structured properly...but I am certain that everyone understands what I have said.

D'art, you of all people, who appreciate poetry and e.e.cummings, should understand the deviation from the norm. Wow, I should have posted this on BoGoWo's Soap Box.

0 Replies

Letty, I have no objection to deviating from the norm. But I think that we need to know what the norm is before we start deviating from it. Our deviations should be deliberate, as were those of cummings and other poets.

But poetry is art. I'm concerned here with daily communication among regular folks. Such communication should be clear and precise. If linguistic norms and standards add to precision and clarity, then they are worth having and following. This is especially true for written communications, because we don't have body language and visual signs to help clarify meaning and intent.

0 Replies

Roberta, I agree totally. I simply think that among regular folks (not scholars) that even the written language should be somewhat flexible. Sometimes, it becomes the "fewer' of two evils. Very Happy

Did you ever try to write a one page paper on how to tie a shoe lace? Shocked

This has been a challenging thread, Roberta.

0 Replies

Re: Fine-Tuning, 2: It/They

Roberta wrote:

The company is having a financial crisis. They will start laying off employees next month.

Management is concerned about high absenteeism. They plan to investigate changing the absent-with-pay guidelines.

The team is taking the bus to the next game. They would prefer to fly, but it's too expensive.

The audience applauds every time she comes on stage. They are a bit overly enthusiastic.

In the context provided, company, management, team, and audience are all singular. In each case the second sentence is wrong. In each case, they should be it.If you prefer not to use it, you may recast the second sentence.

The company is having a financial crisis. Employees will be laid off starting next month.

Management is concerned about high absenteeism. Managers plan to investigate changing the absent-with-pay guidelines.

The team is taking the bus to the next game. Players would prefer to fly, but it's too expensive.

ROBERTA: Why should "it" be used?

Although this may seem obvious when you write the first sentence, it becomes less obvious when you write the second sentence.

Stay on your toes!

0 Replies

Letty, Yes, I've had to write instructions for tying shoelaces. In fact I worked as editor on a series of books designed to teach hands-on activities. So I was required to view many common activities from a step-by-step point of view. What I learned from this was that you can't write it until you think it clearly. I strongly believe that people would and could write more clearly if their thinking skills were sharper. One person's opinion, for what it's worth. Woe is I Smile

for being such a hardass.

New Haven, Company is a singular word. A company is planning to expand. The company is moving its headquarters. In these two sentences it's clear that company is singular. When you write a second sentence, company is still singular. Therefore, when you refer to it, you must refer to a singular thing.

A company is planning to expand. It needs more office space. (Not, They need more office space.)

The company is moving its headquarters. It is moving to a state with fewer regulations. (Not, They are moving to a state with fewer regulations.)

They is a word that refers to a plural and doesn't go with a singular antecedent.

I hope this helps. Smile

0 Replies

Thanks, Roberta. My major in college was chemistry, not English.
Guess it shows at time!

0 Replies

McTag alluded to this earlier, but it hasn't really been addressed (apologies, Roberta, if you were planning to do a separate thread fine-tuning it): what about "none"?

I was taught that "none" is a singular word because it's a contraction of "not one", so one should say (for example), "None of the trains was on time", not "None of the trains were on time." But these days I often hear "none" used as a plural word, by people who should know better: is that just another indication of slipping standards, or has it become acceptable to treat "none" as a plural word?

0 Replies

From: The American Heritage® Book of English Usage.
A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English. 1996.

Quote:

1. Grammar: Traditional Rules, Word Order, Agreement, and Case

§ 39. none
" and then there were none." The closing words of this well-known nursery rhyme should dispel the notion that none can only take a singular verb. People opposing the plural use base their argument on the fact that none comes from the Old English word an, meaning "one." But the citational evidence against restricting none is overwhelming. None has been used as both a singular and plural pronoun since the ninth century. The plural usage appears in the King James Bible as well as the works of John Dryden and Edmund Burke and is widespread in the works of respected writers today. 1
Of course, the singular usage is perfectly acceptable. Whether you should choose a singular or plural verb depends on the effect you want. You can use either a singular or a plural verb in a sentence such as None of the conspirators has (or have) been brought to trial. However, none can only be plural when used in sentences such as None but his most loyal supporters believe (not believes) his story.

The "Tutoring And Testing at the University of Houston - Victoaria" says:

Quote:

"Writing Effective Sentences: Making the Parts Agree
Subject /Verb Agreement (Part 2)
Look at the context. Pronouns like none, enough, more, most, some, all, or half can make agreement with either singular verbs or plural verbs, depending on the overall meaning of the sentence. "

Other online grammars suggest mostly the use of singular.

0 Replies

bree, Walter has answered your question. Webster's also states that none can be singular and plural.

I fail to see how it can be plural, but I'm obviously outvoted and overruled. C'est la vie. I'm very literal-minded.

0 Replies

Thank you, Walter and Roberta. I'm also literal-minded (and too old to change my ways), so I'll continue saying "None of the trains was on time" -- except where it's more expedient to fudge the issue by saying "None of the trains arrived on time."

0 Replies

Yes I agree that "none" can be singular or plural.

And I think it is misleading to think of it as a contraction of "not one"- I don't think it is.

(Thinks- but even if it were, in a literal sense "not one" means more than one, no? Of course, it could be taken to mean"not even one", but no-one is suggesting that.)

In any case, Fowler's English Grammar confirms the statement above.

0 Replies

McTag, I don't think of none as a contraction--just a plain, old word.

What I don't understand is how it can function as a plural--ever! I know that it does. All the sources say it does, so it must be so.

I'm reminded of a grade school lesson. What's 1 X 0? What's 1,000,000 X 0? The answer is always the same. Nuttin'.

0 Replies

Fine-Tuning, 2: It/They

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know