Language desk
< August 15	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 16[edit]

Was/were[edit]

I ran across this sentence: "A total of 24 Lysanders was used by the FAFL." My first instinct is that it should be were, but I'm not sure why. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be was. You don't go by the noun in the prepositional phrase, you go by the one before it. Paragon ¹²³²¹ 03:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"a total of * was" and "a total of * were" get similar hit counts on Google, including use in academic and news sources. A (quantity noun) of (plural noun phrase) is very often reanalyzed so that the plural noun phrase governs the verb instead of the quantity noun. (If it means anything, the ratio of "a number of * was" to "a number of * were" is 1:3.6 on Google, again with academic and news sites using both.) You're safe phrasing it either way. Strad (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not. Only "were" is correct here. Such expressions are construed as singular or plural according to what they're actually about. In this case it's about the planes, so it's plural. If it said "A total of 24 Lysanders was given in Smith's book, but White's book said 20", then the sentence would be about the total, not the planes, and the singular would be correct. If you look at the Google hits on "a total of * was", many of them are measurements or monetary amounts, which are typically construed as singular even when the unit is in the plural, no matter whether it's "A hundred dollars was spent" or "A total of $100 was spent". --Anonymous, 06:10 UTC, August 16, 2008.

The verb here is was. "of 24 Lysanders" is a prepositional phrase just as Paragon12321 stated. Words that fall into these phrases are not the subject (and do not count in subject verb agreement as suggested by Anonymous) thus your subject is total not Lysanders. That being said try thinking of the sentance without the phrase in it (a rule of thumb my gradeschool and high school teachers used in subject/verb agreement was to have students cross out the prep phrase), "A total was/were used by the FAFL." Which sounds correct here? Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must leap to the defence of Anon's case here. The appropriate fragment to consider would be "24 Lysanders was/were"..., not "a total was/were ...". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that cleared it up...not. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to explain it, then. If the expression "A total of X" could be replaced by "X" without losing any meaning, then you should use whatever verb would follow X. That verb would generally be plural, but it could be singular, depending on whether X = 2 or more, or only 1 (I'm confining this to integers). That's because "a total of" is additional information about X, but the sentence is still essentially about X, not about the fact that it was derived by adding other numbers to get a total.

So, "A total of 24 Lysanders was/were used by the FAFL" could be replaced by "24 Lysanders was/were used by the FAFL", and it's obvious the only correct verb here is "were". Another example:

Q. How many people die in Casablanca every year?
A. A total of 1,000 people die (pl. - not dies, sing.) in Casablanca every year.
Equivalent A. 1,000 people die (pl. - not dies, sing.) in Casablanca every year.

If, however, the sentence was focussed on the total in itself, regardless of what numerical value that total happened to be, then because "total" is singular, it would take a singular verb in all cases.

Q. How many people live in Casablanca?
A. A total of 35,000 is given (sing. - not are given, pl.) in Smith's book, but a total of 42,000 is given in Jones' book.
Equivalent A. A total is given in Smith's book, but a different total is given in Jones' book. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I wasn't impugning your explanation, Jack. I was just a bit exasperated (and amused) at getting three different opinions on the matter. Chalk it up to unclear indentation. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←In order to avoid complaints from whiny prescriptivists that the subject is the singular word "total", it might be better in such cases to rephrase the sentence along the lines of "In total, 24 Lysanders were used by the FAFL." —An gr 12:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the first thing I did. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proplem with the "X" argument is that it completely ignores the fact that X falls in a prepositional phrase. Just because you can replace total with 24 Lysanders doesn't justify the argument. In this case 24 Lysanders exists as the noun phrase of a prepositional phrase thus not on its own. The X argument ignores the preposition (in this case of), something any English teacher would cringe at. The term is "of 24 Lysanders" not "24 Lysanders." Because the phrase exists as one not parts "Of 24 Lysanders were used by the FAFL" does not make sense. However "A total was used by the FAFL" does make sense. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can surmise, the sentence is about Lysanders, a type of aircraft, that were used by the Free French Air Force. They initially used one Lysander, then another, until eventually they used 24 Lysanders. If that's the context, then they used Lysanders; they didn't use totals (thus, "A total of 24 Lysanders were used by the FAFL"). The librarian or the official historian of the FAFL may be more interested in recording totals, in which case it'd be "A total of 24 Lysanders was recorded in the official history of the FAFL". I can see your argument, but I too have tutored English and I certainly don't cringe at my own explanation. Anonymous hit the nail on the head: Such expressions are construed as singular or plural according to what they're actually about. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack you're completely ignoring the structure of the sentance. Read rule two here Blue Book of Grammar Nice or in evil (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idiom trumps structure. Consider it a matter of idiom, but Jack's explanation is exactly right. --Anonymous, 19:04 UTC, August 22, 2008.

I'll agree that idioms can trump stucture; the problem is that we aren't working with an idiom, so your argument is completely random. Nice or in evil (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay we have several different rules and opinions here. Probably one of the best arguments that I have found evidence for isn't even my own. First off we aren't working with an idiom, its called a collective noun (or quantitative noun). This set of rules is found in an article by Pam Nelson of the News and Observer. "The words "variety," "number" and "total" (and a few others) can be treated as either singular or plural, according The Writer's Digest Grammar Desk Reference. If we use the article "a" in front of these words, we usually need a plural verb. If we have "the" in front, we need a singular verb" Collective Wisdom retrieved 22-08-08. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been nice to annoy my high school English teachers with this information. Oh well so there's the answer, in this case it looks like it's plural. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A total of 24 thanks to everyone for an interesting discussion and a satisfying conclusion. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A hard on(e)?[edit]

What is th correct plural of 'hard on' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.158.77 (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard-ons. —An gr 14:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um I think I might regret looking this one up but Angr is right its hard-ons (or hardons). Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not "hards on" (although a hypothetical case could be made for that - The attendees at the meeting of presidents elect and attorneys general sat around discussing the size of their hards on"). -- JackofOz (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should that be presidents erect? - sorry Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. Do you like my hard curved one Monica?

Pronunciation of Achille Castiglioni[edit]

For Achille, I think it would be ah-sheel but then it bears the same name to Achilles' Heel, which is like ah-kill-ees. So which one is correct? Thanks, 81.158.33.201 (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Ah-sheel" is the French pronunciation, but since he was Italian, I'd go with "a-KILL-lay". —An gr 14:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the surname is roughly "kahs-tihl-YOH-nee." Deor (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Castiglioni - My understanding is that in Italian each vowel is "pronounced", so Castiglioni would be said in five syllables. Is my understanding wrong or is Castiglioni an exception to a rule that is generally true? Thanks. 15:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The letter "i" after "g" or "c" can just indicate the pronunciation of the preceding consonant ("ciao" etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the "i" comes after "gl" (not "g" or "c"), but it's still true that it isn't pronounced separately. —An gr 18:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. How about the name Gigliola, as in Gigliola Cinquetti? Three syllables or four? Wanderer57 (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's three - "jil-YO-la". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

things[edit]

The thing belonging to them - their thing
The thing belonging to him - his thing
The thing belonging to her - her thing
The thing belonging to it - its thing (not: it's thing, common mistake)

In light of the latter common mistake why then

The friendship belonging to oneself - one's friendship (not: ones friendship)?

please explain

k thx bai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.235.153 (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that one has not evolved as much as other pronouns since it is not as commonly used. See One_(pronoun)#Genitive and you'll notice it doesn't have a strong possessive form like theirs, yours, etc. His, her, their, its, etc. are irregular i.e. they don't follow the rules because you don't say he's or she's to mean possessive. Irregularities appear in the words most commonly used in a language (cf. be). One's lack of usage in day-to-day speak might explain why it is not irregular like the other possessive pronouns.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, one wasn't always an indefinite pronoun. Its usage as such was influenced by the French on[1], whereas the usage of words like his go all the way back to English's Germanic roots.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, one is also a noun. It would be confusing if it inflected one way as a pronoun and another way as a noun. "They have four three-man boats and a one-man boat. The threes are wooden, but the one's hull is fiberglass." --Anonymous, 03:43 UTC, August 17, 2008.