Subject-Verb Agreement?

[hill roberts]

Aww, that hurts. I shall miss the banter, although I must say that maxsims has become unreasonable of late. He was arguing for the sake of arguing, and wouldn't let it drop. He sounded like a housewife, disgruntled at the poor facilities of his kitchen and not knowing where to find the basic tools but for the knife that he tried to use a few times in the rowdy discussion that ensued. Still, I look forward to his re-appearance.   ::)I'm not looking for blood-letting , only a discussion that would take a certain topic to another level. Other Forum members, I'm sure, would be able to do it, once the windsurfing  has dwindled and swimmers take command of the calm seas again. 

[glensky]

To: The Forum’s members

As ever often, confounded by the statement “I arrived home late” I have still been. And as predicate adjunct was explained, there are questions surfacing and rippling the quiet of my comprehension. It has been clearly said “home” is a predicate adjunct and is a complement that says something about the subject. “I arrived home late.” If, indeed, it is as explained,in whatever way does the word “home” describe the subject? Does it in any way characterize the subject?

There are two (2) examples given to facilitate our comprehension re the point of discourse “home,” viz:

1.   “We drink our coffee black.”
2.   “We painted the wall blue.”

Clearly, in these two (2) examples given, “black and blue” are adjectives and modify some words in the two (2) sentences. On the other hand, “I arrived home late,” is not, as far as my own thought is concerned, the same sentence pattern as those examples given. There lies now the problem because how can we now specifically classify the word “home” as part of speech. If it be a complement, what kind of complement it is? If we comply with the examples given above and assume the sentence “I arrive home late” is the same pattern as the examples, I will say that “late” is the complementary adjectival modifier and “home” is the action-receiving sentence component. I start to toy and entertain that idea. However, will it not result to absurdity?

I think this is the stage where I would like you all to participate by giving your additional inputs to the Discussion Board, and I believe things shall be easier then. Simply dig-in and hand-in whatever insights about the subject you may have. Don’t hold back since you all are part of this constructive discussion.

Now, let’s discuss the “optional complement.” The (two) 2 words are irreconcilable. How can a word that completes be optional? Anything that completes something is not optional, but, rather, it is basic and essential. Just like the pillars of a house, they complete the house; therefore, essential… I know this is not Forum’s members’ concoction, but someone else’s… This is a clear issue of misnomer.

We must be critical of authors feeding us their ideas because, sometimes, their egocentricity is well-entrenched in their works. As a result, their works become highly doubtful and self-centered. We must judge their works and filter them. As always, we make the final analysis if we eat and digest them, or otherwise…

[Joe Carillo]

I welcome Glensky’s invitation to Forum members to help shed light on the seemingly confusing usage of the complement “home” in the sentence “I arrive home late.” I don’t wish to preempt the views of other Forum members on the subject, so I just would like to clarify that the word “home” in that sentence isn’t functioning as a noun but as an adverb; indeed, it’s important to know that “home” can be a noun, adjective, or adverb depending on how it is used in a sentence.

Here’s the definition of “home” as an adverb by my Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary:   

home
Function: adverb
Date: before 12th century

1 : to or at one's home  <go home>  <stayed home all day>
2 a : to a final, closed, or ultimate position  <drive a nail home>  b : to or at an ultimate objective (as a goal or finish line)
3 : to a vital sensitive core  <the truth struck home>
  –home free : out of jeopardy  : in a comfortable position with respect to some objective

Of course, “home” can also serve as an adjective, as in “home office,” “home remedies,” and “home cooking.”

Now I leave Glensky’s questions and observations about the predicate adjunct open for discussion by the Forum members.

[vans26]

Hello Sir Joe.    I am shy to join in before but I think what you do to maxsims is not fair.   He agree with you about what is singular and plural but you do not answer about the subject of the sentence where glensky and you give different subjects.

Also, what did your colleagues say about continuous/contiguous?

[Joe Carillo]

I’m glad you have conquered your shyness and made your very first posting in the Forum.

About the matter of fairness: If you’ll just go over the discussion thread on subject-verb agreement from the very beginning, you’d find that I’ve already given very detailed answers to every question maxsims had asked—in fact, much more than what’s normally called for under the circumstances. Some of the questions were even regurgitated ones just meant to harass. Indeed, the problem was that maxsims would only accept answers that he wanted to hear; no amount of explanation would suffice unless it confirms his own preconceived answers to his own questions.

I would like to assure you that as a rule, the Forum normally gives a very long rope even to highly charged and confrontational exchanges of views. What isn’t acceptable is immoderate language along with recriminatory behavior in the discussion boards. This is the reason for the action taken with respect to maxsim’s participation in the discussion boards.

As to the word choice between “continuous” and “contiguous,” it’s a good thing you reminded me. The matter somehow slipped my mind. Right after this, I’ll sound off some of my fellow English-usage writers about the issue and I’ll let you know as soon as I get their feedback.

[vans26]

OK Sir Joe.   Then let me ask.....what is the subject in "Those many gallons of petrol was not enough to get him to Sydney."?

[Joe Carillo]

As to this sentence, "Those many gallons of petrol was not enough to get him to Sydney," the full subject of the sentence is the noun phrase "those many gallons of petrol." The speaker, by using the plural form adjective "those," obviously thinks of the petrol in terms of the number of gallons. The operative subject would then be the plural "those many gallons," the verb would be the plural form "were," and "of petrol" would just be a modifier of the noun phrase: "Those many gallons of petrol were not enough to get him to Sydney."

However, as I contended in my previous postings following the grammar prescription posted by glensky, that same quantity of petrol would be singular if the speaker thinks of it as a total entity, say the entire contents of a 5-gallon petrol container. From his or her standpoint, it would then be correct to use the singular verb-form "was" in this statement: "Five gallons of petrol is not enough to get him to Sydney." This time, the operative subject is the singular mass noun "petrol" and the words "five gallons of" is just a modifier of that operative subject.

This is what I meant when I explained that when the subject of a sentence is a noun phrase with a modifier, whether that subject should be treated as singular or plural actually depends on the speaker's point of view--in other words, on how he or she looks at the subject being talked about.     

[vans26]

The operative subject would then be the plural "those many gallons," the verb would be the plural form "was," ....

Confusing....

[Joe Carillo]

Oops, sorry for that proofreading error! That phrase should read "the verb would be the plural form "were," so the complete sentence should read as follows:

The operative subject would then be the plural "those many gallons," the verb would be the singular form "was," and "of petrol" would just be a modifier of the noun phrase: "Those many gallons of petrol were not enough to get him to Sydney."

The 37 to 30 Centigrade heat must have gotten into my brain. Once again, my apologies!

(Having taken note of the error, I'll now correct the erroneous posting to avoid any more confusion.)

[glensky]

To: The Forum’s Members

"Those many gallons of petrol was not enough to get him to Sydney." Still, the simple subject is “gallons” and the correct verb-form is “were.” Anyhow, Vans26  can refer to my posting on page 2, dated May 11, 2010. My explanation there is substantially enough to make things clear, certainly.

Nothing really changes except the discussion on the subject and verb agreement starts to flare up again, but not as hellish as once it was. We should understand that, sometimes, we, as human beings, make some oversights. But that’s very understandable because committing omissions is remindingly contributing to our own nature as God’s creation-we still are human; therefore, not perfect… We should learn to read beyond the lines, and not to always expect a straight answer.

There are two (2) purposes why we ask questions: first, we really don’t know the answer; second, we want to measure and quantify the degree of knowledge a certain person possesses. Doing the second is common, as I have observed, at the Forum. Eventually, it shall be an open battlefield to all members where one can attack others’ fortresses, and the attacked, evidently, will surely offer their impregnable defenses.

Re Maxsims suspension is not that appalling at all because of the behavior he has exhibited to the Forum which really warranted the imposition of penalty. Indeed, we should be reminded the Forum has its own policy to comply with so that descent discussion can be effected without distraction, and it shall be a better site for all willing to participate in the Discussion Board.

Perhaps, Joe’s action has been given ambiguous meaning because of the Forum’s past set up where Maxsims relentlessly attacked Joe at whatever angle he could and at any chance he could hold of. Nevertheless, we can’t change what Joe has imposed on Maxsims unless the Forum will allow any member to file a motion for reconsideration to allow him to reconsider what he has imposed on Maxsims.

To observe neutrality and due process, I suggest the Forum should create 13 man team to serve as the Forum’s justice panel in charge of evaluating complaints and rendering the appropriate decisions and penalties on whatever issue or complaint brought to its attention. And majority vote is needed to impose a penalty on whoever is accused of any offense. By doing this, members can be assured of an independent and disinterested and unbiased and impartial decision.
 

[jonathanfvaldez]

today, i returned to the Forum, after being inactive for more than six months, and was surprised to learn about maxsims's suspension.  i was surprised not because of the suspension but because it took a long time before maxsims was suspended.  you see, even before my inactivity, i sensed that maxsims's tone was confrontational and at times even belligerent in his responses.  at the very least, maxsims didn't seem willing to help others reach the apparent high level of English proficiency that he or she has managed to attain. truth is, his or her cantankerousness is a factor in my hiatus.  i just felt that maxsims's trademark attitude of "win-the-debate-and-embarass-the-other-party-at-all-cost" ( i hope i would be spared from maxsims's ascerbic review on his or her return for my ignorance of an idiom or proper phrase in place of the long-winded phrase above --- or anything else in here that he or she might fancy as worthy of a response ---) has no place in a forum, such as this Forum, mainly geared to educate its members.  that it took a long time before the suspension is a testament to Joe's patience and "bigger take on things." (i don't know if this is a proper idiom, but i'm using it anyway.)
as for your suggestion for a panel to observe due process, i disagree. this is joe's forum, and he has his rules. we are mere invitees. in any event, due process, i believe, was observed. maxsims was given a lot of "warnings" (which maxsims simply ignored).
changing the topic, i came across a very helpful grammar book that is basically a condensed version of Joe's "Winning Edge" book.  it's titled "Woe Is I" by Patricia Conner, and i got new one cheap ($7) online. just the witty and funny writing style is worth every cent. cheers!   

[glensky]

To: The Forum's Members

At whatever angle you look at it, it's just a suggestion. The decision, whether or not to heed it, now all depends on the person or persons concerned.

Additionally, disagreeing is simply a part of free thoughts, and we can disagree with anyone on any issue  at hand. However, to disagree with someone by merely saying "it's Joe's Forum" is a little bit disconcerting and discomposing. We are in a democratic society where due process has been observed since the birth of our government. To advise otherwise is to suggest and scaffold autocracy where only one exercises infinite discretionary powers.

Certainly, I never hint at someone's or anyone's having exercised such. Conversely, my argument is basically based on logically comprehensive philosophical approach, anchored on some considered premises said by some posters.