Subject-Verb Agreement?

[Joe Carillo]

I think it's best for glensky himself to reply to this very interesting rejoinder by maxsims on the "petrol" subject-verb agreement conundrum. In any case, I'm too preoccupied at the moment doing the next edition of the Forum, which is due my midnight tonight. I just want to make a quick confirmation that contrary to what maxsims supposed, I meant "contiguous"--not "continuous"--when I wrote "contiguous" in my last posting in reference to the 5 meters of rope. Here's the definition of "contiguous" by my digital Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary:

Main Entry:contiguous
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin contiguus, from contingere to have contact with — more at  CONTINGENT
Date: circa 1609

1 : being in actual contact  : touching along a boundary or at a point
2 of angles   : ADJACENT 2
3 : next or near in time or sequence
4 : touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence  <contiguous row houses>

synonyms see ADJACENT
  –contiguously adverb 
  –contiguousness noun

I do think that Def. 4 is the precise denotation of "contiguous" as used in my posting.
   

[maxsims]

Yeah, right...!

Exactly what is touching or connected in your five metre length of rope? 
Describe the sequence. 
Is your good wife's tape measure a contiguous length of tape, or a continuous one?

[Joe Carillo]

My goodness, maxsims, I never imagined that up to this time of your life, you still don’t have a clear idea of the distinction between the adjectives “contiguous” and “continuous”! I can tell you without any hesitation whatsoever that anybody’s tape measure—my wife’s or any other woman’s—is a “contiguous length of tape” and absolutely not “a continuous one.” I therefore wonder why you continue to insist on your own choice of word here as if it were a matter of life and death for you.

As I already pointed out in my earlier posting, I used “contiguous” in the sense of the following definition by my digital Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary: “4 : touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence  <contiguous row houses>.” In contrast, unless Australian dictionaries define it otherwise, “continuous” in the context of this discussion clearly means “marked by uninterrupted extension in space, time, or sequence,” as defined by my dictionary. Take note that the operative word in that definition is the word “extension,” whose noun form, “extend,” is defined by the same dictionary as follows:

extend
transitive verb 

1 : to spread or stretch forth  : UNBEND  <extended both her arms>
2 a : to stretch out to fullest length  b : to cause (as a horse) to move at full stride  c : to exert (oneself) to full capacity  <could work long and hard without seeming to extend himself>  d (1) : to increase the bulk of (as by adding a cheaper substance or a modifier)
5 a : to cause to reach (as in distance or scope)  <national authority was extended over new territories>  b : to cause to be longer  : PROLONG  <extend the side of a triangle>  <extended their visit another day>;  also   : to prolong the time of payment of  c : ADVANCE, FURTHER  <extending her potential through job training>
6 a : to cause to be of greater area or volume  : ENLARGE  <extended the patio to the back of the house>  b : to increase the scope, meaning, or application of  : BROADEN  <beauty, I suppose, opens the heart, extends the consciousness — Algernon Blackwood>

I have taken the trouble of giving you the entire set of definitions for the verb “extend” to impress on you that this word is meant to convey the idea of “spreading or stretching forth” in time or space, which is the sense of the adjective “continuous.” And that sense, I must tell you, is definitely not the sense meant and conveyed by this passage from my posting in question (boldfacing for emphasis mine):

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?”)

I therefore maintain that “contiguous” is absolutely the correct word for the two instances of my usage of it above, in the precise sense of Def. 4, “touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence.” The wholeness of the piece of rope was the operative idea all throughout my discussion of it, and at no time was the idea of “spreading” or “extending” that length of rope ever suggested in the discussion. I therefore suggest that you relent on your insistence on “continuous” for this particular usage; if that’s not possible, though, you may want to seek the independent opinion of a higher lexicographic authority. Once you get it, please don’t hesitate to share it with us by posting it in the Forum.

[maxsims]

My goodness, Joe Carillo, I never imagined that, up to this stage of your life, you still don't have a clear distinction between the adjectives "contiguous" and "continuous".   Neither did I imagine that you would resort, yet again, to goalpost shifting in that you subject us to a homily on "extend", which is entirely irrelevant to the comparison at hand.

But, taking up your challenge, herewith some more dictionary definitions, plus some synonyms from Roget:

Oxford
Contiguous:  1 sharing a common border. 2 next or together in sequence
Continuous:  without interruption

Funk &Wagnall
Contiguous:  1 touching at the edge of boundary   2 close, but not touching; adjacent
Continuous:  Extended or prolonged without break

Cambridge
Contiguous:  Next to or touching another (usually similar) thing
Continuous:  Without pause or interruption

Roget
Contiguous:  touching, in contact; tangential, abutting, end-to-end
Continuous:  unbroken, uninterrupted

I think these definitions align closely with those in your beloved Merriam-Webster (especially definition 1).    I also think that these are the commonly-understood definitions.

It logically follows, I suggest, that a thing cannot be contiguous unless there is something else for it to be contiguous to.   Your 5-metre length of rope does not meet this requirement.

(By the way, should not there be a parenthetical comma after "that" in your opening sentence?

[Joe Carillo]

Just a cursory reading of the definitions and synonyms you posted shows how false and untenable your appreciation is of what “contiguous” means. On the contrary, they actually support what I precisely meant by my use of that word:

Oxford: contiguous: 2 next or together in sequence; Funk & Wagnall’s: contiguous:  1 touching at the edge of boundary; Cambridge: contiguous:  Next to or touching another (usually similar) thing; and Roget’s Thesaurus: contiguous:  touching, in contact; tangential, abutting, end-to-end.

You say that the definitions you cited for “contiguous” and “continuous” are “the commonly-understood definitions.” I say that this is a highly presumptuous and gratuitous statement that’s not borne out by the definitions you offered; rather than being the “commonly understood” definitions, I think these definitions only reveal the parochial if not chauvinistic limits of your understanding.

I also find it absurd that once again, you accuse me of “goalpost shifting” by identifying “extend” as the operative meaning in the definitions of “continuous.” To a person with an objective, unjaundiced mind, what I did was actually “goalpost setting”—to establish a common ground for rationally understanding the issue at hand.

In fact, maxsims, I do think it was you who did the goalpost-shifting here just to start a needless linguistic raucous. Remember asking the following question to establish your argument? “Exactly what is touching or connected in your five metre length of rope?” My original phrasing was “one contiguous piece of rope 5 meters long.” Not that it matters much to the argument, but you unilaterally changed the physical noun “piece” to the abstract noun “length” so you can have a basis for a wrongheaded harangue that started with this belligerent statement: “I think Joe meant ‘continuous’, and he meant to be consistent with his treatment of numbers.” Now that’s what I’d call “goalpost shifting.”

So, in closing, maxsims, you may want to ponder this question tonight: Which of these noun phrases do you think makes semantic sense: “one contiguous piece of rope,” or “one continuous piece of rope”? Methinks the first—my original phrasing—does. As to the second, I think that to begin with, it’s enough rope to hang the body of your argument by its neck.

[vinzvonvan]

"As to the second, I think that to begin with, it’s enough rope to hang the body of your argument by its neck."This made me laugh...

[hill roberts]

Since I, too, am confused, I asked my English husband which is which:

His answer: "Five gallons of petrol is not enough."

Or perhaps, I should have said:

Since I am confused too, I asked my English husband which is which:

[maxsims]

My dear Joe,

Why don't you put the question to your journalist friends?

(And, while I was being driven along that continuous  (you would say "contiguous") stretch of road from Subic to Manila, it occurred to me that you have yet to reply to my original argument, to wit:

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.)

[Joe Carillo]

It looks like while traveling, you missed my graphics-supported reply to your observation about this "petrol" subject-verb agreement conundrum. Please check back to Reply #20 and Reply #21, both dated May 9, in this discussion thread. I really thought that my explanation in those two postings would be enough to clarify this contentious issue, but here we are still at loggerheads over it.

As to your suggestion that I ask my journalist friends which of these two phrases is semantically correct, “one contiguous piece of rope” or “one continuous piece of rope,” I think that's a good idea. I'll pass the question around and I'll post in the Forum whatever their opinions might be. I hope his arrangement suits you fine.

[glensky]

Subject and verb agreement is not that difficult to understand if, indeed, one wants to constructively appreciate it. And since language has never been substantially enough to comprehensively depict my thoughts about it, allow me to dissect the sentence “He discovered that those many gallons of petrol was not enough to take him to Sydney” so that, somehow, some issues could be eventually made transparent to those bewildered and parched learning minds. 
 
The sentence pattern is S-V-DO, and the part we disagreed on is the DO “that those many gallons of petrol was not enough to take him to Sydney.” I would like to emphasize, as Maxsims would agree, the complete subject of the sentence is “those many gallons of petrol” but the simple subject really is “gallons.” Be it a single-word subject, subject phrase, or subject clause, none really is a problem so long as we know how to exactly spot the true and simple subject.  The other parts are just modifiers making the simple subject specific in meaning and plain to readers’ understanding.

“THAT THOSE MANY GALLONS OF PETROL WAS NOT ENOUGH TO TAKE HIM TO SYDNEY…”

Before the simple subject, there are two modifiers, “those and many.” After the simple subject, there is this phrasal modifier “of petrol.” So, the main consideration for choosing the right number of verb should be the simple subject “gallons” and the two modifiers before it, “those and many.”  “Many” originally is a pronoun and is always indicating plurality; “those,” is, at all times, indicating and emphasizing plurality and individuality to mean, as far as the subordinate clause above is concerned, that every one (1) gallon is considered valuable and significant to getting him to Sydney. In effect, the main consideration is not the entirety of the many gallons of petrol which can be considered a single unit, but, take note, each petrol-holding gallon composing and contributing to the many holding-gallons of petrol. “Petrol,” though it’s the operative subject, has not that much value in determining the number of verb that should be used and not the controlling word. Accordingly,the verb should be "were."

By the way, Maxsims, what is the function of “that” in that subordinate clause above? 

[maxsims]

My dear Joe,

Taking your advice, I referred back to your replies of May 9.   What did I find?   Yet another explanation of the noun/verb number conundrum!

Let me make it clear (as I believe it already is) that I am NOT disputing your position on this matter; we think alike.

What I AM querying is your apparent change of mind over what constitutes the subject in a particular sentence.    To repeat (ad nauseam):

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.

I ask again: is there not a contradiction here?

A simple 'yes' of 'no' will suffice.

[Joe Carillo]

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.

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]

It doesn't matter how carefully you read your "explanation" (read "obfuscation"), the black and white (not grey) facts are: you say the subject of the sentence is "petrol".   Then Glensky says it is "many gallons"; and you agree with him!     Which is it?

[Joe Carillo]

Since your brain automatically rejects any explanation other than what's already hard-wired there, there's not much I can do at this point. This is becoming so tiresome. Just go on with what you think to the best of your lights. I think the Forum members following this discussion have learned enough from this protracted exchange and can very well make up their minds about the usage at issue here. Let's spare them from any more browbeating.

[maxsims]

Suits me, Joe Carillo.

The Forum members will have learned a lot, principally that the sentence, "He discovered that those many gallons of petrol was not enough to get him to Sydney", has two subjects: "petrol" and "many gallons".

The Forum members will also have learned a lot about us!