Conquer Club

A couple of thoughts;

a) I would use "are". It does produce a sentence that is somewhat unwieldy, but appears to me to be grammatically correct.

b) I notice that the original poster has a Japanese flag - I've found generally that those who learn the language abroad are much better educated in the structure of the language than those who speak it as a first language. In countries with English (or American-English etc) as a first language, the use of grammar is often quite shocking and the language is used to get a point across and the actual correct use of grammar is often ignored. Double negatives being a good example of this ("I ain't got none" ).

c) Though I'd use "are", it sounds quite formal and I wouldn't be concerned if someone used "is" in conversation.

d) There appear to be very few (if any) Americans contributing to this topic...

e) Language is a fluid and ever changin thing. More so in recent times with the internet and the increasing Americanisation of the language. If we had this conversation again in 30 years, it is probably that either would be fine... Rules on grammar are being relaxed more and more each year. Is this a good thing? That's the real question...

lcb11 wrote:
b) I notice that the original poster has a Japanese flag - I've found generally that those who learn the language abroad are much better educated in the structure of the language than those who speak it as a first language. In countries with English (or American-English etc) as a first language, the use of grammar is often quite shocking and the language is used to get a point across and the actual correct use of grammar is often ignored. Double negatives being a good example of this ("I ain't got none" ).

I think Sym is teaching abroad but is a native speaker. Don't know for sure though.

Symmetry wrote:
I've asked a few other peeps since then.

You're an english teacher???

Otherwise I agree, "is" sounds better.

Why is this debate continuing? There is no debate.

Snorri1234 wrote:

lcb11 wrote:
b) I notice that the original poster has a Japanese flag - I've found generally that those who learn the language abroad are much better educated in the structure of the language than those who speak it as a first language. In countries with English (or American-English etc) as a first language, the use of grammar is often quite shocking and the language is used to get a point across and the actual correct use of grammar is often ignored. Double negatives being a good example of this ("I ain't got none" ).

I think Sym is teaching abroad but is a native speaker. Don't know for sure though.

Yes, a native speaker begins being educated in the language four or five year before setting foot into a class. With a language as widely spoken as English there are wide varieties of grammar mistakes that are common to each individual area.

(My particular colloquialism is There's "There is" - I use it too often to
apply to a plural "There's two guys standing by door") I've plenty of
others but that one's is chief among them, I think.

I think you hear people in this thread saying it doesn't "sound right" because that's a common mistake made in their dialect.

CrazyAnglican wrote:I think you hear people in this thread saying it doesn't "sound right" because that's a common mistake made in their dialect.

Yeah, using that as an argument is indeed a little silly.

"I ain't got nothing on me." might sound better, but that doesn't make it gramatically correct.

Snorri1234 wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:I think you hear people in this thread saying it doesn't "sound right" because that's a common mistake made in their dialect.

Yeah, using that as an argument is indeed a little silly.

"I ain't got nothing on me." might sound better, but that doesn't make it gramatically correct.

I'm an English teacher as well. I didn't say that it was okay or grammatically correct to use colloquialisms. I was merely stating a possible reason why some people say a grammatically correct phrase "sounds wrong".

Just to confirm:

I am a native speaker living in Japan. I have qualifications in English language, and literature. I have a degree in English lit. I've been a teacher for three years.

btownmeggy: I don't understand your post. You say there's a debate, and then say that there isn't one.

CrazyAnglican: You're perfectly right on the subject of spoken English, but that doesn't necessarily carry into written language.

Hatchman: If I could teach my students the level of style that you suggest, then I'd be a great teacher. I'm not, and this style of problem is likely to come up on one of their tests (set by the Japanese gov't). However, the examples you gave don't really cover the particular problem.

CrazyAnglican wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:I think you hear people in this thread saying it doesn't "sound right" because that's a common mistake made in their dialect.

Yeah, using that as an argument is indeed a little silly.

"I ain't got nothing on me." might sound better, but that doesn't make it gramatically correct.

I'm an English teacher as well. I didn't say that it was okay or grammatically correct to use colloquialisms. I was merely stating a possible reason why some people say a grammatically correct phrase "sounds wrong".

Yeah I know. I tried to show that how it sounds is not a good argument in official language.

It is definitely "There is a book and 5 pens". If there is a list of things, you go by the first noun (In this case, singular) and say "there is".

d.gishman wrote:It is definitely "There is a book and 5 pens". If there is a list of things, you go by the first noun (In this case, singular) and say "there is".

That is only true when the conjunction is "or".

bloknayrb wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
I've asked a few other peeps since then.

You're an english teacher???

He's an English teacher writing on an e-forum

lcb11 wrote: d) There appear to be very few (if any) Americans contributing to this topic...

Ahem.. I beg your pardon. I am, as my profile states, a Connecticut Yankee in King Ferdinand's court.

suggs wrote: You can NEVER say "There are a book on my desk".

Obviously, but the right answer to the wrong question is still the wrong answer to the real question. You ignore the fact that "a book" is only part of a compound subject, and what's more, the other part is plural. Hatchman's reversals on pg 2 make it pretty clear.

suggs wrote: I'm with Humpty Dumpty on grammar-write,

What is this thing, "grammar-write" on which you are with H.D.?

There are five pens and a book on my desk is better

There are some people here who belong in the Spelling and Grammar Nazis.

That's the correct sentence.

538: I'm afraid you can't really stand in front of a class of junior high school kids, tell them that anything they write is OK, and still look like a professional. You have to know the rules sometimes.

Last couple of sentences for the discussion and I'll call it a day:

Once upon a time, there ......... an old man and an old woman.

There ....... a loud bang and a flash of light.

"was" or "were"?

Hatchman's thinking says "were". d.gishman's says "was". The subjects can't be reversed to make it easier.

And yay for a five page thread on grammar!

I'd have to go with style on those ones. Both subjects are compound and therefore call for "were", but saying "there were an old man and an old woman" and "there were a loud bang and a flash of light" is just atrocious.

I'm not a native speaker, but I did study several languages and linguistics, for what it's worth. I'm with the 'are' crowd.

Would you say:

'There is a man and a woman in the house.'

or

'There are a man and a woman in the house.'

I'd use 'are' there, and it's the same construction. It may sound awkward, but sounding awkward and being ungrammatical are not the same thing.

Thanks for your views Koesen and Hatchman.

I entered this argument with a view that natural English should take precedence. Mainly because I teach English as a native speaker, I am very wary of teaching English that obviously sounds like it's from a non-native.

The majority (though not all) of views I've heard in favour of a plural have been from non-native speakers. This includes what is natural in written as well as spoken English.

However, I'm persuaded that teaching the logical answer (however unnatural), might well be the best approach. Structure is best as a start, and hopefully students will use more natural English if they choose to pursue the subject.

I believe that the singular is the best answer, both personally and as a native speaker.

Thanks to everyone who contributed, and I'll continue to answer if anyone sees fit to throw in their money's worth.

Symmetry wrote:538: I'm afraid you can't really stand in front of a class of junior high school kids, tell them that anything they write is OK, and still look like a professional. You have to know the rules sometimes.

Last couple of sentences for the discussion and I'll call it a day:

Once upon a time, there ......... an old man and an old woman.

There ....... a loud bang and a flash of light.

"was" or "were"?

Hatchman's thinking says "were". d.gishman's says "was". The subjects can't be reversed to make it easier.

And yay for a five page thread on grammar!

Hm, I would use were in the first sentence, and I'm tempted to use was in the second, but that wouldn't make sense as it's the same structure.

I guess it depends on what you want to teach. If you want it to sound natural, which is certainly a very valid criterium, then go with your gut feeling. You are after all a native speaker.

Natural and grammatical, however, are not the same. Many native speakers of any language make certain mistakes that foreigners will usually not make, because they spent much more time studying the grammar than the natives.

There are millions of natives who think the phrase 'he don't know nothing' sounds perfectly natural, but it's not grammatical.

Just my last two cents. The decision is yours alone

If I were you, I'd give the answer that I believe to be grammatically correct and tell them that it sounds clunky (and suggest an alternative, as some people did here).

Symmetry wrote:538: I'm afraid you can't really stand in front of a class of junior high school kids, tell them that anything they write is OK, and still look like a professional. You have to know the rules sometimes.

Last couple of sentences for the discussion and I'll call it a day:

Once upon a time, there ......... an old man and an old woman.

There ....... a loud bang and a flash of light.

"was" or "were"?

Hatchman's thinking says "were". d.gishman's says "was". The subjects can't be reversed to make it easier.

And yay for a five page thread on grammar!

In these cases, even more than the "Book-and pens" example, the only really good option is to restructure the sentences to avoid the awkwardness of the technically-correct answer. "An old man lived with his wife..." and "A loud bang and a flash of light made the crowd drop to the ground. '

Somebody improve on these, please.

k I didn't read the whole thread, so I appologize if this had been said before....I think it should be "there are 5 pens and a book on the table".
The order of the subjects is the main problem in the sentence

The1exile wrote:Is for singular, are for plural, for me at least.

More difficult: should it be "There is no paraphernalia here" or "There are no paraphernalia here"?

There are no paraphernalia here. Or, it may be said that there is not a single paraphernalium here.

And in answer to the original question, there is a book and five pens on my desk.

Symmetry wrote:You have to know the rules sometimes.

Good quote. One thing I learned in art is that its okay to break the rules, but first you have to know them.