Subject-Verb Agreement?

[maxsims]

I always consider "data" to be a mass noun, too!

[maxsims]

Here's an example, taken from a British hospital website, which demonstrates the "rule" that if the subject noun is essentially plural, so should be the verb.

A significant number of patients does not need to take any pain-killers whatsoever after leaving the centre. There are no stitches to be removed and no special medical or nursing after-care is needed.

[glensky]

It is always confusing when the subject involved is a mass noun with a quantifier involved because we can't simply choose easily what is the right verb form to use ( singular or plural). The rule, however, states that 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.

Ex. Five bottles of water are enough to quench our thirst.
     One bottle of water is...
     Those many gallons of petrol are not sufficient to fuel my car.
     One gallon of petrol is...
In the example above, the real subject is "five bottles." "Of water" is just an adjectival modifier. Just like the second example, "many gallons" is the real subject." "Of petrol" is a modifier. In addition, in the second example, there is this modifier "those" which emphasizes individuality. The more that the verb form should be plural...

[Joe Carillo]

Good point, glensky! I absolutely agree with your explanation.

[maxsims]

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:
??

[Joe Carillo]

I'm very much aware that this subject-verb agreement issue remains highly contentious, but 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 is why I can't find fault whatsoever with Glensky's position on the matter. Words fail me, though, when I try to explain the hairline distinctions in this admittedly confusing state of affairs. I'm therefore having some visual aids prepared to clarify the grammar for instances like this. I'll be posting them here very shortly, probably by tonight, Philippine time. Watch for it.

[Joe Carillo]

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.

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.

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.

[maxsims]

Nope.    Your explanation flies in the face of your earlier contention that "many years of study" is singular.

You can't have it both ways.

[Joe Carillo]

Then that’s just too bad! You’re forgetting that we are dealing with two entirely different classes of nouns here—countable physical matter (bottles of water, gallons of petrol) and countable but abstract concepts (years, study, length of experience). The difference, of course, is that you can put physical matter into countable containers, but you can only mark time through the use of clocks and calendars and can never contain or encase it. This is why I thought you were fully convinced that “many years of study”—an obviously abstract notion—could only be singular and definitely not plural. Now you say that I can’t have it both ways. To that, my answer is: Why not? Ah, well… Although I know you’re a native English speaker, maxsims, I find it surprising that the grammatical distinctions between these two classes of nouns are lost to you. May I suggest that you do a deeper review of English grammar for a better appreciation of these distinctions? Then we can talk again and see if we can finally reconcile our different perceptions about this issue.

[maxsims]

So many people—even well-respected academics—fall for the plural form of the verb in that construction, and more’s the pity. 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.”

Did you or did you not write the above explanation?

[Joe Carillo]

Yes, of course, I did write that explanation for that particular noun phrase, “many years of study,” which is an abstract concept that I contended could only be singular. This, I remember distinctly, you finally accepted after a long, protracted discussion. In essence, you accepted my justification for using the singular-form verb phrase in this sentence: “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.” I based that justification on this well-established grammar rule: time periods for a particular activity that’s notionally singular is grammatically singular, as in these example: “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.” We don’t say “Fifty hours are excessive,” do we? I think we can safely conclude here that time, no matter the measure, is always singular grammatically and notionally.

Now, as to this sentence specimen that I now remember you yourself had posted in the Forum sometime last January:

“He discovered that those many gallons of petrol was not enough to get him to Sydney.”

Here’s exactly what I said about that construction:

So many people—even well-respected academics—fall for the plural form of the verb in that construction, and more’s the pity. 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.” The usage is admittedly confusing and slippery when it comes to a mass noun like “petrol,” but the fact that the subject in such noun phrases is actually singular gets much clearer in the case of other mass or collective nouns like “cloth,” “rice,” “teaching,” and “rain”:

“The tailor found out that the five meters of cloth was not enough.”
“Five kilos of rice is the weekly consumption of that family of four.”
“Over 20 years of teaching has made her feel a truly accomplished person.”
“Two days of rain was enough to flood the low-lying town near the river.”

Note my very specific caveat in that explanation: “The usage is admittedly confusing and slippery when it comes to a mass noun like ‘petrol’, but the fact that the subject in such noun phrases is actually singular gets much clearer in the case of other mass or collective nouns like ‘cloth’, ‘rice’, ‘teaching’, and ‘rain’.”

In his recent posting that revived this contentious issue, glensky cited this very sensible grammar rule that could help eliminate the confusion over whether to treat the noun phrase “many gallons of petrol” as singular or plural:

“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.”

That was precisely when it dawned on me that at least in the particular case of “petrol” and similar finite nouns with a physical and measurable existence, the verb in such cases can indeed be singular or plural depending on the speaker’s point of view. This is what I  explained in my previous posting that graphically showed five gallons of  petrol in two containment situations: (a) in distinct, separate 1-gallon bottles, and (b) combined in a single 5-gallon container.

In the first situation, the quantifier of the subject “petrol” is the physically countable five units of gallon bottles, so from the point of view of the speaker (say, a gas station attendant dispensing petrol), the verb can very well be in the plural form as well: “Five gallons of petrol are not enough to get you to Sydney.” In the second situation, however, the entire contents of the five units of 1-gallon petrol bottles are contained in a single 5-gallon bottle. This time what we have is a single bottle containing five gallons of petrol, and from the point of view of someone (perhaps a motorist getting petrol from a gas station) who has chosen to view that petrol as a single entity, it's just one unit regardless of the fact that it contains five gallons of petrol. It will therefore be grammatically and notionally correct for the motorist to use the singular verb “is” in sizing up the adequacy of the petrol for his need: “Five gallons of petrol is not enough to get me to Sydney.”     

This is as far as I would go in my effort to make you see the two sides of the “petrol” conundrum that you yourself originally posed in this Forum. The next time, I would greatly appreciate it if you could clearly present your arguments for or against this explanation rather than just dismissing it offhand with such unproductive remarks as “You can’t have it both ways” and “Did you or did you not write the above explanation?” This is a learning forum for English usage and not a place to nurse old hurts. We have much to learn from each other if we can clearly keep this in mind.

[maxsims]

After my column on “The correct verb form for noun phrases” came out in The Manila Times last Joe, you posted the following some time ago:

Saturday (January 23), the paper’s editor in chief, Rene Bas, sent me the following note:

“Here is another explanation of the use of the singular in the sentences you and Max Sims cited.

“A noun-phrase subject naming a unit of measurement, currency, length of time, etc., calls for a singular verb because no matter the quantity, amount, length of time, number of units, etc., the sense is that of a totality, a whole. Therefore: “five meters of rope was needed,” “ten pesos is the selling price,” “40 minutes is too long for a speech,” “30 pieces of silver was Judas’ bribe.”

I must admit that I hadn’t thought of this very succinct explanation for why the singular verb should be used in such noun phrases. It’s much clearer and simpler than my own, don’t you think?

My thanks to Rene Bas for this grammar insight!

Are you going to tell Mr Bas that you now reject his explanation?

[Joe Carillo]

Am I rejecting Manila Times editor Rene Bas’s explanation? Not at all! In fact, it perfectly dovetails with my contention that when the sense of a noun-phrase as subject is its totality, the singular verb is called for; it also perfectly dovetails with the 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.” But again, as I explained using visuals in my posting before the last, a plural verb will be called for when the sense of the noun-phrase is not its totality but its separate, distinct components.

Take the case of Rene Bas’s first example, “Five meters of rope was needed.” There’s no arguing that the singular verb-form “was” is grammatically and notionally correct if the speaker is thinking of a contiguous piece of rope that’s five meters long. But if what the speaker (perhaps a magician) has in mind are five separate lengths of rope, each 1 meter long? Then I don’t think we can question that speaker’s use of the plural-form “were” when he makes a declaration like this: “For my magic act, five meters of rope were needed.” (If you are a newly hired assistant of this magician, of course, you probably would ask him to be more specific by asking, “You mean one contiguous piece of rope 5 meters long, or did you mean five lengths of rope that were 1-meter-long apiece?”) In any case, what we have here is a grammar situation similar to that of your “petrol” conundrum; you’ll use either the singular or plural form of the verb depending on what’s precisely on your mind. In other words, it’s your point of view that dictates whether you’ll use a singular or plural form of the verb.

As to the three other noun phrases given by Rene Bas, we have to examine them on a case-to-case basis. In the same way that I analyzed your “petrol” conundrum, we need to find out whether they are in the nature of countable physical matter (bottles of water, gallons of petrol) or countable but abstract concepts (years, study, length of experience). I’m sure you’ve already gotten the drift of my analysis by now so I’ll no longer belabor the point. I’ll just leave it up to you whether to accept my analysis of your “petrol” conundrum or stick to your own appreciation of it. Of course, if you come up with compelling fresh ideas to rebut my analysis, I’d be delighted to hear them.

[glensky]

I agree with Joe's explanation on subject and verb agreement I posted on May 06, 2010. And as all erudite grammarians have experienced, grammar is a very deceiving subject because, at first glance, it may appear so a simple subject as new learners may see it. But, undoubtedly, it is a very intricate and complex subject due to its some undefined frontiers--we simply don't know where one part of speech ends and where another begins. Because of its complexities, it is quite important reader-learners ought to be analytical and precise in their perceptions.

This explanation is just a additional insight into more understanding the explanation I posted and a supplemental input to Joe's great discourse on Quantity and Measurement: Expression of measurements (miles, days, years, bushels, gallons, pounds, dollars, etc.) take a singular verb when referring to a total sum--an aggregate considered a single unit. When the units constituting the whole are considered individually or serially, the verb is plural.

Ex. Five months seems like a long time to wait.
     Those five months were spent developing a new process.
     A thousand bales of cotton was marketed that year.
     A thousand bales of cotton were stacked on the dock.
     
Maxsims will surely have a nice sleep tonight.

[maxsims]

My dear Glensky,

Thank you, I slept well indeed.    Probably much better than did you, considering the outcome of the Philippine elections.

I concur with your advice that readers-learners ought to be analytical and precise in their perceptions.   If you follow your own advice, you will have noticed that my latter argument with Joe centres not so much on what is or is not singular or plural but on a divergence of opinions (yours and his) over what is subject and what is modifier.   To recap:

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:
 ??

Here we have Joe telling us what the subject is, then you coming along and telling us it is something else, and then Joe agrees with you.

When I pointed out this contradiction, Joe goes off into an epic, obfuscating explanation of a topic I was not referring to.    Not only shifting the goalposts again but playing another game!

As to your “rule” about mass nouns, I agree with it even though, to a degree, Fowler would take issue with you.

What riles me is people declaring nouns to be “notionally”singular or plural when they are plainly not.    If there is but one item, be it water, petrol, a year, a metre, a length, cats, dog, fire hydrant… whatever, then that item is logically, philologically, mathematically and grammatically singular.    If there are more than one, then those items are logically, philologically, mathematically and grammatically plural.   To make the distinction is why the terms were invented, one would think.

Noun phrases, however, are (is?) another matter.   The notional number given to such phrases (and to a certain few nouns like “team”) is an idiomatic device that has been in use for yonks and cannot be argued against.

Then Joe comes up with:

I'm very much aware that this subject-verb agreement issue remains highly contentious, but 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.

That is all very well, but how can the reader know for certain the speaker’s point of view?    For all we know, he or she may simply have made a noun/verb agreement error!

(If you are a newly hired assistant of this magician, of course, you probably would ask him to be more specific by asking, “You mean one contiguous piece of rope 5 meters long, or did you mean five lengths of rope that were 1-meter-long apiece?”)

I think Joe meant “continuous”, and he meant to be consistent with his treatment of numbers.