In the first part of this column (posted last September 2, 2018), I discussed the following special prescription for determining the number—whether singular or plural—of noun phrases consisting of a mass noun and quantifier: “When the mass noun has its own quantifier, the subject can take either a singular or plural verb, depending on the number of the subject as indicated by the quantifier.” This supplemented the basic English grammar rule that when the subject or doer of the action is a singular noun, the verb takes the singular form; conversely, when that subject or doer is a plural noun, the verb takes the plural form.
This additional prescription was cited by Forum member Glensky and I found his explanation for it grammatically airtight. Indeed, after giving the matter a lot of thought, I came to the conclusion that whether the verb in such sentences should be in the singular or plural form actually would actually depend on the speaker’s point of view.
But an irascible Australian member of the Forum dismissed this conclusion of mine with this remark: “Your explanation flies in the face of your earlier contention that ‘many years of study’ is singular. You can’t have it both ways.”
The noun phrase referred to is one I used last year in this lead sentence of a promotional writeup for my book
Give Your English the Winning Edge: “Many people discover to their dismay that their many years of formal study of English has not given them the proficiency level demanded by the job market, by the various professions, or by higher academic studies.”
My use of the singular “has not given” for “their many years of formal study in English” was declared wrong by a noted language professor in the Philippines, who pointed out that the verb should be the plural “have not given” instead because, he argued, that verb actually refers to the plural “many years,” not to the singular “formal study of English” in that noun phrase.
I defended my use of the singular verb form for that entire noun phrase, explaining that it’s an abstract notion that could only be singular. I based my justification on this well-established grammar rule: Time periods for an activity that’s notionally singular are grammatically singular, as in “Fifty hours of sleeping is excessive.” (Even if we knock off the gerund “sleeping” in that sentence, the time period stays notionally and grammatically singular: “Fifty hours is excessive.”)
The Australian member of the Forum whom I earlier referred to disagreed. He insisted that the verb should take the plural form instead, but he eventually accepted my position after a long, protracted discussion.
Now he is taking issue with me again. He adamantly disagrees with my conclusion that in sentences like this one of his, “Five gallons of petrol (is, are) not enough to get you to Sydney,” the verb could either be singular or plural depending on the speaker’s or the writer’spoint of view. “You can’t have it both ways,” he insists.
Basically, here’s how I arrived at my conclusion: If the petrol comes in five separate, distinct gallon containers, it would make sense and it would be notionally correct to think of the subject of the sentence above as the plural “five gallons,” which, of course, would need the plural verb form “are”: “Those five gallons of petrol are not enough to get you to Sydney.”
But the grammar situation would be different if the speaker is looking at a large container containing 5 gallons of petrol, and he estimates that it won’t be enough for his car to reach Sydney. In his mind, he looks at the petrol in terms of its total quantity in that container. Grammatically and notionally, therefore, it makes perfect sense for him to use the singular-form verb “is” in that sentence: “Five gallons of petrol is not enough to get you to Sydney.”
This is why I am convinced that, at least in the particular case of “petrol” and similar physically measurable finite nouns, the verb for mass nouns with quantifiers could indeed be singular or plural depending on the speaker’s point of view.
This essay first appeared in the column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in the May 22, 2010 issue of The Manila Times
, © 2010 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.
