Conquer Club

There ............. a book and five pens on my desk.

"is" or "are"

The subject "a book and five pens" should agree with the verb- "are", but I would say "is".

Anybody interested in the English language? Thoughts?


dullest post ever

I believe it is "Is" as it suits more than "are" and sounds less crappy. That's my opinion though.

You have too many pens.

Thanks for the reply.

That's my opinion as well. I'm an English teacher and I covered this grammar point recently. Another teacher corrected what he thought was my mistake (i.e. he thinks "are" should be used, and that "is" is merely conversational English).

I've asked a few other peeps since then. Opinion is divided. Most reckon "is" sounds right, and "are" sounds clunky. Some (including at least one newspaper editor) say that "are" is correct even if you think it sounds odd.

There's been no consensus so far. So I thought I'd turn to Conquer Club...

I believe it's correct to use 'are' in this case, even though it sounds strange. (Even though I'm not a native speaker, so I suppose I can't really judge that.)

Personally I'd change the word order to:

There are five pens and a book on my desk.

Which sounds better to me all round.

That was the advice I offered my students, Tripitaka. It doesn't really answer the question though.

Another example would be "There ........ is a pen and a book on the table."

That would also need "are" to agree with the subject, but sounds strange.

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"?

Symmetry wrote:That was the advice I offered my students, Tripitaka. It doesn't really answer the question though.

Another example would be "There ........ is a pen and a book on the table."

That would also need "are" to agree with the subject, but sounds strange.

Well to answer your question, I'd use "are" in the original sentence, that being the grammatically correct form, yet oddly in conversation I would use "is" in the example above, simply because it sounds better.

I'd say "is" for paraphernalia. It's an uncountable noun, in the same category as "food" or "wine".

Paraphernalia looks very much like a plural to me.

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"?

Paraphernalia being a plural noun, I'd use "are"

What would be the singular? I would say it's uncountable.

It's not so much uncountable as collective.

I'd agree with Sym, but I know people who will argue either way. It's not like it's one paraphenali, two paraphernalia.

MeDeFe wrote:It's not so much uncountable as collective.

But so is butter, I think, and that's still "is".

I think you'd have to add a counter to use a plural- "There are two pieces of paraphernalia".

The1exile wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:It's not so much uncountable as collective.

But so is butter, I think, and that's still "is".

Butter isn't a collective noun.

The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English wrote:paraphernalia
1 a lot of small things that belong to someone or are needed for a particaular activity [...]
2 the things and events that are connected with a particular activity [...]

I left out the examples because they did nothing to clarify wheter 'is' or 'are' has to be used. However, unlike water or butter where you have one substance that is perceived as a whole from which you can take pieces and it still remains a whole, paraphernalia is a word that contains many individual pieces that can be named if the need arises. That's why I don't want to see it as a "true" uncountable and would use 'are' instead of 'is'.

Nice reasoning, but food would fall into your definition too. A group of related objects that can be classified together but are not necessarily the same substance (in the way that water or butter are at least).

"There are no food here." ?

Also, although I don't want to be snide... that dictionary misspelled "particular" in its first definition. That's usually a bad sign.

No it didn't, I typed it.

Symmetry wrote:Nice reasoning, but food would fall into your definition too. A group of related objects that can be classified together but are not necessarily the same substance (in the way that water or butter are at least).

"There are no food here." ?

Also, although I don't want to be snide... that dictionary misspelled "particular" in its first definition. That's usually a bad sign.

The difference being that food is not classed as plural noun, but is in fact a singular noun, that can be used in a collective/general context.

MeDeFe: apologies, I thought it was pasted.

I can't think of many plural nouns that exist in the way that you define them, but I suggest "memorabilia".

There is no memorabilia. or There are no memorabilia.

Which is a little inconclusive.

Also- food is being used as a plural noun in this context, i would argue. Of course food is classed as a singular noun because it has a plural form "foods", in a way that paraphernalia doesn't. In this context, however, it is used to group and class a large number of different objects.

Remind me never to get involved in a discussion while nursing a massive hangover.

Now I'm going to have to lie down before my poor little head explodes!

Just for you Tripitaka:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuwWwVjmK0o&feature=related

Thanks for contributing