Carillo:
Grammatically, of course, the verb should take the singular form because the operative subject in the noun phrase “those many gallons of petrol” isn’t the plural “those many gallons” but the singular mass noun “petrol.”
Glensky:
Just like the second example, "many gallons" is the real subject." "Of petrol" is a modifier.
Carillo:
Good point, Glensky! I absolutely agree with your explanation.
Bemused readers:
?????
In his posting, Forum member maxsims, citing bemused readers that presumably include himself, raised doubts about the following grammar rule cited by glensky:
“When the mass noun has its own quantifier, the subject can take either singular or plural verb, depending on the number of the subject as indicated by the quantifier.”
I said in an earlier posting that I absolutely agree with glensky’s explanation for this rule. Also, as I said in my later posting today, I have come to the conclusion that whether the verb in such cases should be singular or plural actually depends on the speaker’s point of view. This conclusion is entirely consistent with glensky’s examples and his explanations for the rule he cited.
Let’s examine glensky’s first sample sentence:
“Five bottles of water are enough to quench our thirst.”
If the water comes in five separate, distinct bottles, as shown in the illustration below, then it would make sense and it would be notionally correct to consider the subject of the sentence above as “five bottles,” which, of course, is plural. The plural form of the operative verb, “are,” would then be called for.
(http://josecarilloforum.com/imgs/5Bottles.png)
Of course, also as clarified in the illustration, the use of the singular verb “is” isn't debatable when only one bottle is involved:
“One bottle of water is enough to quench our thirst.”
This is because “one bottle” and “water” are both grammatically and notionally singular.
But the grammar situation is different in the case of glensky’s other sentence:
“Those many gallons of petrol are not sufficient to fuel my car.”
We can presume here that the speaker is looking at a large container containing petrol, but he estimates that the petrol it contains won’t be enough for his car. In his mind, as made clear by his use of the plural article “those,” he looks at petrol in terms of the countable gallons inside that container. From both the grammatical and notional standpoint, therefore, he has no choice but to use the plural-form verb “are” in that sentence. This can be better appreciated by examining the illustration below.
(http://josecarilloforum.com/imgs/2Bottles.png)
On the other hand, also as shown in the second illustration, the use of the singular verb “is” isn't debatable when only one countable gallon of petrol is involved, as “one gallon” and “petrol” are both grammatically and notionally singular:
“One gallon of petrol is not sufficient to fuel my car.”
I hope that this explanation and the graphics I have provided have clarified this contentious grammar issue once and for all.
My simple answer is, "No, there's no contradiction." The problem here is, I think, that you want to box in things as simply black or white, with no grays in between; well, English grammar--like the world itself--just isn't like that. I suppose this as as true with the English in Australia as it is with the English in most of the civilized world. I suggest you read my explanation again, more closely and more objectively this time:
In his posting, Forum member maxsims, citing bemused readers that presumably include himself, raised doubts about the following grammar rule cited by glensky:
“When the mass noun has its own quantifier, the subject can take either singular or plural verb, depending on the number of the subject as indicated by the quantifier.”
I said in an earlier posting that I absolutely agree with glensky’s explanation for this rule. Also, as I said in my later posting today, I have come to the conclusion that whether the verb in such cases should be singular or plural actually depends on the speaker’s point of view. This conclusion is entirely consistent with glensky’s examples and his explanations for the rule he cited.
Let’s examine glensky’s first sample sentence:
“Five bottles of water are enough to quench our thirst.”
If the water comes in five separate, distinct bottles, as shown in the illustration below, then it would make sense and it would be notionally correct to consider the subject of the sentence above as “five bottles,” which, of course, is plural. The plural form of the operative verb, “are,” would then be called for.
(http://josecarilloforum.com/imgs/5Bottles.png)
Of course, also as clarified in the illustration, the use of the singular verb “is” isn't debatable when only one bottle is involved:
“One bottle of water is enough to quench our thirst.”
This is because “one bottle” and “water” are both grammatically and notionally singular.
But the grammar situation is different in the case of glensky’s other sentence:
“Those many gallons of petrol are not sufficient to fuel my car.”
We can presume here that the speaker is looking at a large container containing petrol, but he estimates that the petrol it contains won’t be enough for his car. In his mind, as made clear by his use of the plural article “those,” he looks at petrol in terms of the countable gallons inside that container. From both the grammatical and notional standpoint, therefore, he has no choice but to use the plural-form verb “are” in that sentence. This can be better appreciated by examining the illustration below.
(http://josecarilloforum.com/imgs/2Bottles.png)
On the other hand, also as shown in the second illustration, the use of the singular verb “is” isn't debatable when only one countable gallon of petrol is involved, as “one gallon” and “petrol” are both grammatically and notionally singular:
“One gallon of petrol is not sufficient to fuel my car.”
I hope that this explanation and the graphics I have provided have clarified this contentious grammar issue once and for all.