1
You Asked Me This Question / Re: Shouldn't verbs in "there was" clauses agree with the number of the subject?
« on: January 13, 2014, 07:52:16 PM »
Okay, you posed this question on Twitter earlier today: "Which is correct? 'There (is, are) shame and dishonor in being found to be unfit for public office.' Are you sure?" My vote, and I think the consensus, was that "is" is preferable, correctness or lack of it notwithstanding, because "are" in this instance would sound awkward.
The rule of agreement says that the sentence should use "are" for plural subjects (indicated by "and"), and "is" if the subjects are singular (which they would be if the sentence said "shame or dishonor"). But this seems to be one of those acceptable rule-bendings that must drive non-English speakers crazy when they're trying to learn the language. "There are shame and dishonor..." just sounds weird. It's kind of the same convention that uses "an" as an article before nouns beginning with a vowel; there's no logical grammatical reason for doing that, it just "sounds better", and consequently is now an actual rule.
"Shame" and "dishonor" are intangible subjects, as well; they are not entities, they're states of being, and they're similar in nature. I suppose one could technically experience shame or dishonor, but since they are not distinctly different states, we naturally think of them as complementary -- in other words, the subjects are not "shame" and "dishonor", but a singular subject "shame and dishonor".
But here's a question for you, Joe: Isn't that a tautology?
The rule of agreement says that the sentence should use "are" for plural subjects (indicated by "and"), and "is" if the subjects are singular (which they would be if the sentence said "shame or dishonor"). But this seems to be one of those acceptable rule-bendings that must drive non-English speakers crazy when they're trying to learn the language. "There are shame and dishonor..." just sounds weird. It's kind of the same convention that uses "an" as an article before nouns beginning with a vowel; there's no logical grammatical reason for doing that, it just "sounds better", and consequently is now an actual rule.
"Shame" and "dishonor" are intangible subjects, as well; they are not entities, they're states of being, and they're similar in nature. I suppose one could technically experience shame or dishonor, but since they are not distinctly different states, we naturally think of them as complementary -- in other words, the subjects are not "shame" and "dishonor", but a singular subject "shame and dishonor".
But here's a question for you, Joe: Isn't that a tautology?