Is it "the equipment is a ball, shoes and ..." or "the equipment are a ball, shoes and ..."?
equipment is/are
Both sound pretty darn awful. Try "The equipment consists of a ball, shoes,..." instead.
If it's subject-verb agreement that puzzles you, MMex, then it must be singular - the subject has the priority.
MMex,
Glikeria provides a good rule of thumb, but I do not think that it is universally aplicable. Take as an example one the most famous sentences in the English language: "The wages of sin is death."
The only way to be sure of what to do in this situation is to go with what sounds right. I know that this is little help to you since you are, I assume, a non-native speaker. But it's the best advice I can give.
Glikeria provides a good rule of thumb, but I do not think that it is universally aplicable. Take as an example one the most famous sentences in the English language: "The wages of sin is death."
The only way to be sure of what to do in this situation is to go with what sounds right. I know that this is little help to you since you are, I assume, a non-native speaker. But it's the best advice I can give.
JW, I think you're mistaken. The sentence that you cite was grammatically correct in 1600, but it's not correct in Modern English. In Early Modern English a predicate noun may have taken priority, but in Modern English the subject *always* take priority. Glikeria's rule is universally applicable.
The Wages of Sin, are Death!
All these grammatical rules are very confusing! But do they produce the right answer in the end?
Does it even matter?
I know it matters because my Polish neighbour with the best intentions in the world, gets the meaning hopelessly wrong on occassion. I find it makes conversation and even doing simple tasks very difficult and frustrating.
To me, Grammar, is about trying to produce combinations of words that make sense. So, when someone says: Yes or No, they mean yes or no, and they are not surprised by the outcome.
In other words, they understand what was said, and reply appropriately!
All these grammatical rules are very confusing! But do they produce the right answer in the end?
Does it even matter?
I know it matters because my Polish neighbour with the best intentions in the world, gets the meaning hopelessly wrong on occassion. I find it makes conversation and even doing simple tasks very difficult and frustrating.
To me, Grammar, is about trying to produce combinations of words that make sense. So, when someone says: Yes or No, they mean yes or no, and they are not surprised by the outcome.
In other words, they understand what was said, and reply appropriately!
Perhaps, perhaps. I know the passage I quoted was from the KJ Bible, but as far as I know it is still grammatically correct to this day.
Yet I may very well be mistaken. I tried to think up some modern-day counterexamples to your assertion. And I had a few. But then I realized that all my couterexamples would probably best be analyzed as having collective nouns that require singular verbs rather than plural nouns that requre singular verbs.
But still, "the wages of sin are death" sounds horrid to me. So I propose a compromise. I will say that "wages" is simply a collective noun like "team" or "group" if you admit that the sentence I posted is grammatically correct, by both the standards of Elizabethan and Modern English.
Yet I may very well be mistaken. I tried to think up some modern-day counterexamples to your assertion. And I had a few. But then I realized that all my couterexamples would probably best be analyzed as having collective nouns that require singular verbs rather than plural nouns that requre singular verbs.
But still, "the wages of sin are death" sounds horrid to me. So I propose a compromise. I will say that "wages" is simply a collective noun like "team" or "group" if you admit that the sentence I posted is grammatically correct, by both the standards of Elizabethan and Modern English.
My comments were, by the way, adressed to you, Lazar. Robin and I seem to have posted at the exact same time.
<<But still, "the wages of sin are death" sounds horrid to me.>>
It's true, even this sentence sounds slightly odd to me (which is because instances of subject-predicate nominal disagreement are exceedingly rare in Modern English in the first place). But the version with "is" sounds completely wrong to me.
<<So I propose a compromise. I will say that "wages" is simply a collective noun like "team" or "group" if you admit that the sentence I posted is grammatically correct, by both the standards of Elizabethan and Modern English.>>
Sorry, but no. If "wages" were a collective noun, then (in American English) it would take singular verb forms everywhere, which it doesn't. "Wages" is a perfectly normal plural noun, which just happens to have a singular predicate noun in this instance.
And remember, the reason why Elizabethan English used the plural verb form wasn't because it treated "wages" as a collective noun (it didn't), but rather, because in Elizabethan English the predicate noun simply took priority over the subject.
It's true, even this sentence sounds slightly odd to me (which is because instances of subject-predicate nominal disagreement are exceedingly rare in Modern English in the first place). But the version with "is" sounds completely wrong to me.
<<So I propose a compromise. I will say that "wages" is simply a collective noun like "team" or "group" if you admit that the sentence I posted is grammatically correct, by both the standards of Elizabethan and Modern English.>>
Sorry, but no. If "wages" were a collective noun, then (in American English) it would take singular verb forms everywhere, which it doesn't. "Wages" is a perfectly normal plural noun, which just happens to have a singular predicate noun in this instance.
And remember, the reason why Elizabethan English used the plural verb form wasn't because it treated "wages" as a collective noun (it didn't), but rather, because in Elizabethan English the predicate noun simply took priority over the subject.
Let's take another example, one that you might find in a legal document. Would you say "the persons are a party" or would you say "the persons is a party"?
And bearing in mind that a pronoun always takes the same verbal conjugation as the noun it replaces, would you say "they are a party" or "they is a party"?
And bearing in mind that a pronoun always takes the same verbal conjugation as the noun it replaces, would you say "they are a party" or "they is a party"?
I am not sure whether I find these discussions interesting or not.
Possibly, I would be wise not to comment.
I think that they reveal the full extent of the problems of going down the 'Teaching Grammar' route to learning a language.
As an exercise, could you repeat what you have just said; using 'everyday' English, and without using any 'technical' terms.
Possibly, I would be wise not to comment.
I think that they reveal the full extent of the problems of going down the 'Teaching Grammar' route to learning a language.
As an exercise, could you repeat what you have just said; using 'everyday' English, and without using any 'technical' terms.
<<As an exercise, could you repeat what you have just said; using 'everyday' English, and without using any 'technical' terms.>>
It might be possible, but it would be very awkward and tedious. If you're going to discuss "technical" things like grammar, you need to use "technical" terms. I think that rather than trying to express everything in "everyday" language (whatever that really means), it's easier to just learn some basic terms beforehand.
<<I think that they reveal the full extent of the problems of going down the 'Teaching Grammar' route to learning a language.>>
There's nothing wrong with teaching grammar. You just need to make sure that the rules (and exceptions) that you're teaching reflect modern usage. If you want my argument in a nutshell, it's that in Modern English, the verb *always* agrees with the subject, without exception.
It might be possible, but it would be very awkward and tedious. If you're going to discuss "technical" things like grammar, you need to use "technical" terms. I think that rather than trying to express everything in "everyday" language (whatever that really means), it's easier to just learn some basic terms beforehand.
<<I think that they reveal the full extent of the problems of going down the 'Teaching Grammar' route to learning a language.>>
There's nothing wrong with teaching grammar. You just need to make sure that the rules (and exceptions) that you're teaching reflect modern usage. If you want my argument in a nutshell, it's that in Modern English, the verb *always* agrees with the subject, without exception.
Lazar,
I admit my ignorance of Elizabethan English grammar. And I am just about ready to concede that you are right. But there are two things in your reply that I wish to challenge in the hopes that I will get to read your answers.
1. You say that collective nouns take the singular verb form everywhere, but that it not what I was taught. Nor is it what I have read in grammar textbooks. Take a look at this usage note from the American Heritage Dictionary:
"In American usage, a collective noun takes a singular verb when it refers to the collection considered as a whole, as in The family was united on this question. The enemy is suing for peace. It takes a plural verb when it refers to the members of the group considered as individuals, as in My family are always fighting among themselves. The enemy were showing up in groups of three or four to turn in their weapons. "
2. You say the sentence "the wages of sin is death" is ungrammatical in modern English, but I say that so long as we consider "wages" a collective noun, the sentence is perfectly grammatical. The Elizabethans of course may not have considered it a collective noun, but what difference does that make when we are discussing its grammatical correctness in modern English? Just look at this entry for "wage" from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary:
- "3.Usually, wages. (used with a singular or plural verb) recompense or return: 'The wages of sin is death.'"
Or this one, from the American Heritage Dictionary:
- "3.(used with a sing. or pl. verb) A fitting return; a recompense. Often used in the plural with a singular or plural verb. 'the wages of sin. '"
Neither entry includes the word "archaic" or "obsolete" so I would assume this makes the sentence "the wages of sin is death" perfectly grammatical in modern English.
P.S. Is there anywhere I can learn more about Elizabethan English grammar? I was not aware they much of a formalized system.
I admit my ignorance of Elizabethan English grammar. And I am just about ready to concede that you are right. But there are two things in your reply that I wish to challenge in the hopes that I will get to read your answers.
1. You say that collective nouns take the singular verb form everywhere, but that it not what I was taught. Nor is it what I have read in grammar textbooks. Take a look at this usage note from the American Heritage Dictionary:
"In American usage, a collective noun takes a singular verb when it refers to the collection considered as a whole, as in The family was united on this question. The enemy is suing for peace. It takes a plural verb when it refers to the members of the group considered as individuals, as in My family are always fighting among themselves. The enemy were showing up in groups of three or four to turn in their weapons. "
2. You say the sentence "the wages of sin is death" is ungrammatical in modern English, but I say that so long as we consider "wages" a collective noun, the sentence is perfectly grammatical. The Elizabethans of course may not have considered it a collective noun, but what difference does that make when we are discussing its grammatical correctness in modern English? Just look at this entry for "wage" from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary:
- "3.Usually, wages. (used with a singular or plural verb) recompense or return: 'The wages of sin is death.'"
Or this one, from the American Heritage Dictionary:
- "3.(used with a sing. or pl. verb) A fitting return; a recompense. Often used in the plural with a singular or plural verb. 'the wages of sin. '"
Neither entry includes the word "archaic" or "obsolete" so I would assume this makes the sentence "the wages of sin is death" perfectly grammatical in modern English.
P.S. Is there anywhere I can learn more about Elizabethan English grammar? I was not aware they much of a formalized system.