NationStates Jolt Archive

Which sounds right to you?

Each of the students is doing homework.
Each of the students are doing homework.

Discuss!
This isn't homework, just something that came up in class.

Also, for discussion: the Oxford comma. Obsolete? Useful? Pretentious?

Neither. Just say 'the students are doing homework'. Don't use the phrase 'each of'.

I still use the serial comma. Also, since "each" refers to individual and discrete students, "is" is the appropriate term.

You would say "each is doing homework" or "each one is doing homework", the change from "one" to "of the students" doesn't change the structure.

The students are doing homework.
Each of the students is doing homework.

Sorry about that, had to see it.....I think the adding of "each" makes the "is" work....students is a group, each is one person, although you'll get many who will say the students group is one person, but I don't know......

I have no rules. I only have my ears and they often deceive me.

Neither. Just say 'the students are doing homework'. Don't use the phrase 'each of'.

It's called a thought experiment for a reason.

I still use the serial comma. Also, since "each" refers to individual and discrete students, "is" is the appropriate term.

You would say "each is doing homework" or "each one is doing homework", the change from "one" to "of the students" doesn't change the structure.

You'd think that, but it turns out "students" can still be the head noun of the noun phrase. Which would mean the verb should match students, not each.

Which sounds right to you?

Each of the students is doing homework.
Each of the students are doing homework.

Discuss!
This isn't homework, just something that came up in class.

Every student is doing their homework.
Each student is doing their homework.

lock the thread i am not here to do someone's home work.

lock the thread i am not here to do someone's home work.

Except I'm not asking anyone to do any homework.

Except I'm not asking anyone to do any homework.

yes you. determining which is correct is clearly your homework.

You'd think that, but it turns out "students" can still be the head noun of the noun phrase. Which would mean the verb should match students, not each.

Even...like if you say "each"? :confused: My native language is so confusing.

I knew someone would say that, but I need to know, how do you know which noun is the noun?

yes you. determining which is correct is clearly your homework.

No, it's really not. Because the answer, which we already went over in class, is that they're both correct, but used in different registers, especially since prescriptivist grammarians say the verb matches "each" while locally most people tend to match the verb to the noun described by "each". Early English grammar used "each" as a pronoun and "of the [noun]" as a adjectival prepositional phrase describing the pronoun, but this use has shifted since the 1800s to use "each of" as a single compound determiner, so "each of the students" would diagrammed as two determiners ("each of" and "the") and a plural head noun (students). The process is called grammaticalization and is the same process from which we get "in front of" and "next to" as compound prepositions and the pronoun "none" from "not one".

So, now that I've demonstrated that I'm not asking for grammar help from the internet, can we get on with the actual point of this thread, which is, which do you use?

It's the Grammar Nazi Krystallnacht!

Each of your nouns is/are not safe!

Even...like if you say "each"? :confused: My native language is so confusing.

I knew someone would say that, but I need to know, how do you know which noun is the noun?

The head noun? Prescriptively, the head noun is "each" and "of the [noun]" is a prepositional phrase. Descriptively: whichever the verb agrees with.

And just to confuse you even more, would you say "Neither my sisters nor my brother is..." or "Neither my sisters nor my brother are..."?

It's called a thought experiment for a reason.


'each of the students are doing their homework' sounds better, of the two.

The head noun? Prescriptively, the head noun is "each" and "of the [noun]" is a prepositional phrase. Descriptively: whichever the verb agrees with.

And just to confuse you even more, would you say "Neither my sisters nor my brother is..." or "Neither my sisters nor my brother are..."?

:rolleyes:But, I made the verb agree with "each" and you......oooohhhh, wait, I get it.

Wow. I should be fired.

Although it's probably not in the grammar books I'm sure you could make an argument for regarding it as one of those singular nouns referring to groups. Like, "the team are doing well". I think that only works in British English though. I mean each definitely implies there being more than one person.

Let's be sensible here, none of the students is doing their homework. Their all out drinking, having under-aged-sex or chasing the dragon.

Just like what I and my friend did when I was a child and it never did me any harm.

It's the Grammar Nazi Krystallnacht!

Each of your nouns is/are not safe!

Oh yes, this is sigged.

And what's up with passive voice? Professors hate that shyte.

Oh yes, this is sigged.

No good unless you also say who it's referencing.

You'd think that, but it turns out "students" can still be the head noun of the noun phrase. Which would mean the verb should match students, not each.

.......no, it really can't.* "Students" in your example is the object of the prepositional phrase "of the students." "Each" is unambiguously the subject of the sentence.

As for the Oxford comma, I like it. I think it is clearer, and more accurately reflects actual speech patterns.




*Well, unless you're arguing for purely usage-based grammar, in which there really are no rules, and any mistake counts as valid if enough people make it. I can't stand that argument, though. I'm all for language evolving over time, but I'd still rather not see "lololol, i pwns ur d00d" be considered proper speech just because plenty of people say it.

.......no, it really can't.* "Students" in your example is the object of the prepositional phrase "of the students." "Each" is unambiguously the subject of the sentence.

As for the Oxford comma, I like it. I think it is clearer, and more accurately reflects actual speech patterns.




*Well, unless you're arguing for purely usage-based grammar, in which there really are no rules, and any mistake counts as valid if enough people make it. I can't stand that argument, though. I'm all for language evolving over time, but I'd still rather not see "lololol, i pwns ur d00d" be considered proper speech just because plenty of people say it.

In this case, it's not just that a lot of people use it, but that a lot of people have been using it that way since 1800.

And remember, not too long ago English still had different grammar for formal and informal second-person.



As for the Oxford comma, my theory is that people looked at situations in which one item in a list is composed of two things and thought tat since there's no comma there, there shouldn't be one elsewhere, either.
ie: I like to eat sandwiches, fish and chips, and salads.

Also, it's hard to argue in favor of prescriptive grammar: it's absolutely arbitrary, and most of prescriptive grammar in English is based on Latin, which is silly because English is Germanic, not Latin.

But the real question is: do you prefer
"Each of the students is doing their homework"
"Each of the students is doing his homework"
"Each of the students is doing his or her homework"
The first is becoming popular, since there isn't a neutral singular (as opposed to the neuter singular, but nobody is going to say "Each of the students is doing its homework"!). The second is what the books used to prescribe, saying that the masculine includes the feminine, but women understandable find that annoying. The third is politically correct, but really awkward.

"Quit procrastinating and do your homework!"

But the real question is: do you prefer
"Each of the students is doing their homework"
"Each of the students is doing his homework"
"Each of the students is doing his or her homework"
The first is becoming popular, since there isn't a neutral singular (as opposed to the neuter singular, but nobody is going to say "Each of the students is doing its homework"!). The second is what the books used to prescribe, saying that the masculine includes the feminine, but women understandable find that annoying. The third is politically correct, but really awkward.

I never figured out why it's annoying......I mean it's possible because other romance languages I know work that way.

I did ask when learning Spanish if you say "abuelos" how do you know if it's one set of grandparents or two grandfathers but my teacher just laughed at me and told me to shut up.

Also, for discussion: the Oxford comma. Obsolete? Useful? Pretentious?

vital. lists just get needlessly ambiguous without it. and anyone claiming that it can also increase ambiguity is a fucktard.

Which sounds right to you?

Each of the students is doing homework.
Each of the students are doing homework.

Discuss!
This isn't homework, just something that came up in class.


"Each of the student is doing homework" is correct.

Since you're referring to them individually the verb to be has to agree with the subject in number.

If removed "each of" then "are" would be the correct form.


The head noun? Prescriptively, the head noun is "each" and "of the [noun]" is a prepositional phrase. Descriptively: whichever the verb agrees with.

And just to confuse you even more, would you say "Neither my sisters nor my brother is..." or "Neither my sisters nor my brother are..."?

You would make it agree with the noun that's closer to the verb, so "Neither my sisters nor my brother is..." would be right.

vital. lists just get needlessly ambiguous without it. and anyone claiming that it can also increase ambiguity is a fucktard.

You know what's more vital? Capital letters at the beginning of sentences!!! You know who else didn't use capital letters? Hitler, yep that's right. :p

You know what's more vital? Capital letters at the beginning of sentences!!! You know who else didn't use capital letters? Hitler, yep that's right. :p

capital letters are just a sign of capitalist oppression. comrade hitler was on the right track on this particular score.

Which sounds right to you?

Each of the students is doing homework.
Each of the students are doing homework.

Discuss!
This isn't homework, just something that came up in class.
Each is.
And I prefer the Oxford comma because it preserves the natural pause one would insert into a series of items.

"I like rice, beans, and chicken."

I bad at the grammars.

but, here is one my parents and I were discussing the other week:
There is a number of pineapples in the bowl
There are a number of pineapples in the bowl

Because "a number" is singular, but "a number of pineapples" is multiple.

Solution anyone?

I think it more correct to say that some of the students are doing homework, the rest are messing about on Facebook.

Each is.
And I prefer the Oxford comma because it preserves the natural pause one would insert into a series of items.

"I like rice, beans, and chicken."

That's interesting. I was always taught not to use the comma before the and in a list.

'a number of' is just 'many' or 'several', no?

Which sounds right to you?

Each of the students is doing homework.
Each of the students are doing homework.

Discuss!
This isn't homework, just something that came up in class.

There is no justifiable reason to consider either to be grammatically incorrect as both are acceptable in everyday usage. However, I think the first is clearer because the 'each' dominates 'students'.

Which sounds right to you?

Each of the students is doing homework.
Each of the students are doing homework.


I'd say the first one is correct.

Verb: "is doing". that is, singular. Subject, "each" with the specification "of the students". "Each" is singular.

The second one is wrong because the number changes between subject and verb.

(second-graders should be able to answer such simple questions about syntax, methinks)

That's interesting. I was always taught not to use the comma before the and in a list.

Use commas to separate elements in a series, but do not put a comma before the conjunction in a simple series: The flag is red, white and blue. He would nominate Tom, Dick or Harry.

Put a comma before the concluding conjunction in a series, however, if an integral element of the series requires a conjunction: I had orange juice, toast, and ham and eggs for breakfast.

Use a comma also before the concluding conjunction in a complex series of phrases: The main points to consider are whether the athletes are skillful enough to compete, whether they have the stamina to endure the training, and whether they have the proper mental attitude.

I didn't know the name until I looked it up just now, but I've been using the serial comma for a while. It can get rid of ambiguity--but can create it if poorly used.

Wikipedia has some examples of both. Funnily enough, two of them involve Ayn Rand. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IAmNotMakingThisUp)

Is.

Know what I find annoying? When people say "Nintendo are making games" or "Ford are doing that." I know they both employ a number of people that is greater than one, but they are still single entities. You wouldn't say "Billy are not smart" just because Billy is made out of trillions of cells, would you?

And people using the wrong form of "they're" when they mean "there" or their". As a general rule, if you want to know if a contraction works, break it up into the original two words and see if it makes sense. If using "they are" doesn't make sense, then niether does "they're". This is why school was invented. Well, that and filling developing brains with propoganda hidden within specifically worded history book chapters.

Each of the students are doing homework.


done.

Which sounds right to you?

Each of the students is doing homework.
Each of the students are doing homework.
'is'.

Oh and spelling is orthography, which isn't grammar, it's a part of graphology :tongue:

Which sounds right to you?

Each of the students is doing homework.
Each of the students are doing homework.

Discuss!
This isn't homework, just something that came up in class.

"Each of the students is doing homework."

No doubt, whatsoever, in my mind. Each student, not: each students.

'is'.

Oh and spelling is orthography, which isn't grammar, it's a part of graphology :tongue:

It is more of a question of word-choice than spelling.

It is more of a question of word-choice than spelling.
That would be more to do with semantics.

That would be more to do with semantics.


Correct.

English is too cumbersome to deal with.

Speak Latin! or,

DICITE LATINAE LINGUAE!

English is too cumbersome to deal with.

Speak Latin!
Ah because having case endings up the arse and more than one way of saying "the" is less cumersome than English.

English is too cumbersome to deal with.

Speak Latin! or,

DICITE LATINAE LINGUAE!

Let us compromise: We can speak pure English.

Rule No. 1 No splitting infinitives.

Definitely the Latter sounds better, I believe the Former is actually correct, but I just cant say that because its torturous to my sanity, lol...

The first choice. "Each" is the subject I do believe.

Also, for discussion: the Oxford comma. Obsolete? Useful? Pretentious?

I don't know how you could call it pretentious. It sounds like it's played (http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=oxford%20comma%20lyrics&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#) on an effing Casio.

So, now that I've demonstrated that I'm not asking for grammar help from the internet, can we get on with the actual point of this thread, which is, which do you use?

neither it is somehow a trap.

In this case, it's not just that a lot of people use it, but that a lot of people have been using it that way since 1800.

And remember, not too long ago English still had different grammar for formal and informal second-person.

Meh. I don't believe grammar rules should interfere with communication but your "it is used, therefore it is correct" reasoning is contrary to the idea of grammar rules in the first place.

"Each ___ is" also sounds better, although those who suggest you eschew "each of" are giving sound advice.

Let us compromise: We can speak pure English.

Rule No. 1 No splitting infinitives.

To boldly go where no one has gone before!!!!

“This is the sort of English up with which I will not put.”

And what's up with passive voice? Professors hate that shyte.

Passive voice is unnecessarily wordy much of the time. It also shifts the focus of the sentence. You'll see it used a lot in reporting, though.

For example:
The doctors found a promising cure for cancer.

A promising cure for cancer was found by the doctors.


The first sentence is more concise, but focuses on the doctors. The second sentence is wordy, but places the focus on the cure, rather than the doctors. Passive makes it more clear that the cure is important, not the doctors.

I caught the ball.

The ball was caught by me.

Again, the first sentence is more concise, and focuses on the person doing the action. The second is wordy and focuses upon the object. Passive makes it less clear that "I" am the important part of the sentence, and not the ball.

Let us compromise: We can speak pure English.

Rule No. 1 No splitting infinitives.

Forhwon ende þærunder?

And for those that recognize the above: Yes, I know my grammar is atrocious and those are all the wrong words.

neither it is somehow a trap.

In the words of Violet Beauregarde, "Can it, you nit."

capital letters are just a sign of capitalist oppression. comrade hitler was on the right track on this particular score.

Thank you E. E. Cummings.

How about: "It is homework that is in a state of being done by each and every one of the students."

Let us compromise: We can speak pure English.

Rule No. 1 No splitting infinitives.

Actually, that comes from prescriptivist grammarians who based the rule on Latin, which can't split infinitives because Latin infinitives are a single word. The rule probably comes from either Bishop Robert Lowth in 1762 or Lindley Murray in 1795. But long before then English speakers split infinitives often they still do today, even though it's still considered impolite to do in formal registers.

What is pure English, anyways? 60% of English vocabulary comes from French, and another good chunk comes from Latin.

Meh. I don't believe grammar rules should interfere with communication but your "it is used, therefore it is correct" reasoning is contrary to the idea of grammar rules in the first place.

"Each ___ is" also sounds better, although those who suggest you eschew "each of" are giving sound advice.

It's only contrary to prescriptivist grammar, which attempts to create arbitrary rules which do not reflect actual usage of the language. Which isn't to say that's ok to have bad grammar. The point is to have appropriate grammar: speak formally when in a formal register, speak informally in an informal register. To that end, splitting infinitives, double negatives, and ending a sentence with a preposition are all prescriptively disallowed in formal registers, but can't be called wrong because most native speakers of English do it in informal registers.

Who is to say how English should be spoken? A few influential people who keep trying to make English a Romance language when it started as a Germanic language? Or 99% of native English speakers?

The point behind grammar is to make yourself understood in the best way possible. Your grammar should therefore conform to the audience.

It's only contrary to prescriptivist grammar, which attempts to create arbitrary rules which do not reflect actual usage of the language. Which isn't to say that's ok to have bad grammar. The point is to have appropriate grammar: speak formally when in a formal register, speak informally in an informal register. To that end, splitting infinitives, double negatives, and ending a sentence with a preposition are all prescriptively disallowed in formal registers, but can't be called wrong because most native speakers of English do it in informal registers.

Who is to say how English should be spoken? A few influential people who keep trying to make English a Romance language when it started as a Germanic language? Or 99% of native English speakers?

The point behind grammar is to make yourself understood in the best way possible. Your grammar should therefore conform to the audience.

It is also important to consider rhetorical aims. Take the passive voice example...passive voice is acceptable when you are trying to highlight the cure, active is preferable if you are trying to highlight the doctors.

Short, choppy, incomplete sentences are bad in some cases, but provide a sense of speed that can be effective. Long runon sentences can provide a sense of serenity that, again, can be effective. Using short sentences to create a sense of speed might fail.

It is also important to consider where formal English started (the triangle of London, Cambridge, and Oxford). Had history been different, we would likely be saying "vox" instead of "fox".

English is getting too complicated. Not as complicated as Spanish, where you have four words meaning "the" and words are assigned genders, which always confused me. Why the hell would a word be male or female? I can understand "male" and "boy" being masculine, but not cat.

I. Me. Is. Are. Why does this problem exist? Why two singular non-pocessive first-person pronouns when only one is needed? Why two plural first-person non-percessive pronouns? Languages should be more bare. Single, very specific things should only get one term. Things get one word. One.

And phonics. There's no need for ph. We already have F for "f" sounds. And C isn't needed. We already have K and S. C can make the "ch" sound. X? Already kave "ks" and "z". X can by "sh". Q can get "ng". Add in a new letter for "th" and make Y always a consanent and we're done with phonics.

So, every thing gets ONE word (no more is/are debates), consanents get one sound each, single vowels are short and double-vowels are long (I know I didn't discuss this), and unbreakable, unchanging, logical rules (or this). If those French or Latin speakers want to complain about their words being left out, tough. Language's sole purpose is communication. Complex, often broken rules and shitty phonics shouldn't get in the way.

English is too cumbersome to deal with.

Speak Latin! or,

DICITE LATINAE LINGUAE!

Shouldn't you use ablative there?

Why the hell would a word be male or female? I can understand "male" and "boy" being masculine, but not cat.
So, do you assume cats to be genderless?


I. Me. Is. Are. Why does this problem exist? Why two singular non-pocessive first-person pronouns when only one is needed?
I don't know if I can explain declensions, or the difference between subject and object, to someone who has problems in spelling "possessive" correctly ;)


Why two plural first-person non-percessive pronouns? Languages should be more bare. Single, very specific things should only get one term. Things get one word. One.

Thou and people like thee would better speak Chinese, then. It's much more basical: no declensions, no conjugations, no numbers, no genders...


And phonics.

"Phonetics".


Add in a new letter for "th" and make Y always a consanent and we're done with phonics.
Actually English had a letter for "th" (Icelandic still has it). Then it was removed to simplify printing. "Consonant", by the way.

If those French or Latin speakers want to complain about their words being left out, tough.
Maybe there should be a verb somewhere between the comma and the period.

Anyway, the problem is that the english language has gone too much out of its way to use a form of latin alphabet as close to the original as one can get, while retaining too many non-Latin sounds. The Czechs, as example, have been much more intelligent: they have expanded the latin alphabet to represent all of their language's sounds through a single grapheme (almost: they have retained the "ch" digraph, which reads just as in German).

So, do you assume cats to be genderless?


I don't know if I can explain declensions, or the difference between subject and object, to someone who has problems in spelling "possessive" correctly ;)


Thou and people like thee would better speak Chinese, then. It's much more basical: no declensions, no conjugations, no numbers, no genders...


"Phonetics".


Actually English had a letter for "th" (Icelandic still has it). Then it was removed to simplify printing. "Consonant", by the way.


Maybe there should be a verb somewhere between the comma and the period.

Anyway, the problem is that the english language has gone too much out of its way to use a form of latin alphabet as close to the original as one can get, while retaining too many non-Latin sounds. The Czechs, as example, have been much more intelligent: they have expanded the latin alphabet to represent all of their language's sounds through a single grapheme (almost: they have retained the "ch" digraph, which reads just as in German).

1. I was talking about the word, not the animal. Animals have genders, usually. Words, being collections of letters or sounds (depending if they're written or spoken), have no genders. I guess whoever invented the Spanish language didn't get the memo.

2. I prefer not having to learn another drawing for every word.

3. I don't get the Latin fascination. If you've got a Germanic language, why the hell would you want to butcher it with Latin? To make it easier for the Latin speakers to learn? It doesn't make it easier to learn when half your rules are broken just to fit another language in.

4. So I misspell words I don't exactly use every week and I don't have a dictionary on hand right now. I was trying to reveal my position on a certain topic, not ace an essay for English class.

Actually, that comes from prescriptivist grammarians who based the rule on Latin, which can't split infinitives because Latin infinitives are a single word. The rule probably comes from either Bishop Robert Lowth in 1762 or Lindley Murray in 1795. But long before then English speakers split infinitives often they still do today, even though it's still considered impolite to do in formal registers.

Right, by pure English I mean English that follows Latin as closely as possible.

What is pure English, anyways? 60% of English vocabulary comes from French, and another good chunk comes from Latin.

"Pure" English is virtually a dead language. It holds words very close to their original definition, and follows Latin structure.

Here is a quick guide by the writer most renowned for using it: http://books.google.com/books?id=HJ1ZAAAAMAAJ&printsec=titlepage&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA3,M1

Right, by pure English I mean English that follows Latin as closely as possible.

Why Latin? English is a Germanic language.

Which sounds right to you?

Each of the students is doing homework.
Each of the students are doing homework.

Discuss!
This isn't homework, just something that came up in class.

This is a tricky one. My first thought was that the second sentence was correct but I have now second guessed myself. The first one is correct because the subject is in fact singular but in a tricky way.

1. I was talking about the word, not the animal. Animals have genders, usually. Words, being collections of letters or sounds (depending if they're written or spoken), have no genders. I guess whoever invented the Spanish language didn't get the memo.
2. I prefer not having to learn another drawing for every word.

Anyway, to sum it up: indoeuropean languages have declensions and conjugations. Language isn't just communication: it's also history. At the very least, about 5000 years of history for indoeuropean languages (including the existance of grammatical gender).

And be glad that you don't have to use German (three genders). Or Russian (3 genders, but with differences between masculine-animate and masculine-inanimate). :eek:


3. I don't get the Latin fascination. If you've got a Germanic language, why the hell would you want to butcher it with Latin? To make it easier for the Latin speakers to learn? It doesn't make it easier to learn when half your rules are broken just to fit another language in.
The english vocabulary contains a LOT of Latin (be it derived directly, or through French and Italian). By the way, until about 1700, latin was the language of science in England. We could even say that English isn't as pure a germanic language as, let's say, Swedish.
Bolded: english words stemming from Latin. :)

Also, you know, as the western civilisation traces its roots directly to Rome...


4. So I misspell words I don't exactly use every week and I don't have a dictionary on hand right now. I was trying to reveal my position on a certain topic, not ace an essay for English class.
This is a thing about native English speakers I really cannot understand. I think that it's perfectly normal to write correctly with ease - but I get that many native English speakers find the proper grammar of English too difficult. Meh. I blame it on the way English is taught.

Right, by pure English I mean English that follows Latin as closely as possible.



"Pure" English is virtually a dead language. It holds words very close to their original definition, and follows Latin structure.

Here is a quick guide by the writer most renowned for using it: http://books.google.com/books?id=HJ1ZAAAAMAAJ&printsec=titlepage&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA3,M1
Why Latin? English is Germanic, with heavy influences first from Old Norse, then Norman/French, then Latin and Greek.

Why Latin? English is a Germanic language.

*gasps* What? you mean English is not a Romance language! *shocked expression*

Of course not. But even you, yourself, said (concerning the splitting of infinitives) that it was once considered proper form to follow Latin structure as closely as possible. Pure English ≠ olde Anglish.

Why Latin? English is Germanic, with heavy influences first from Old Norse, then Norman/French, then Latin and Greek.

Do not ask me; I am obviously not the inventor of propriety.

Why Latin? English is a Germanic language.
Barely.

I got a different question. When referring to a band do you use is or are?
example

The Beatles are a band
The Beatles is a band

Which one is correct?

Each student does homework. Avoids the problem.

I got a different question. When referring to a band do you use is or are?
example

The Beatles are a band
The Beatles is a band

Which one is correct?

The Beatles is a proper noun.

Hate the serial comma. I am a great fan of commas in general, but even I get bogged down by that little bastard. I never use it.

Looks like everyone has a handle on which student is doing his or her homework, so I'll refrain. Except to say that the use of "their" in place of "his or her" bothers me a lot, but I can't tell whether or not it bothers me more than having to say "his or her".

While on the subject: Sentence ending in quotes. Period inside or outside the marks? I feel like I equivocate on this an awful lot.

Thou and people like thee would better speak Chinese, then. It's much more basical: no declensions, no conjugations, no numbers, no genders...

Or sign language. There's a stripped-down language for you.

Using a single word for every semi-tangible "thing" seems like a good idea when you're first learning a language, but it makes for pretty crap poetry.

I got a different question. When referring to a band do you use is or are?
example

The Beatles are a band
The Beatles is a band

Which one is correct?

Is. Why? The "a" makes "Beatles" singular. You are refering to the band as a single entity rather than a collection of seperate entities. You would use "are" when you say something like "Four Beatles are a band." There's still the "a", but "four" makes it clear that you consider each Beatle as a seperate, unique entity rather than a single entity.

This is a thing about native English speakers I really cannot understand. I think that it's perfectly normal to write correctly with ease - but I get that many native English speakers find the proper grammar of English too difficult. Meh. I blame it on the way English is taught.

I guess native English speakers like to write the way they talk and spoken English doesn't always follow all the rules of written English.

While on the subject: Sentence ending in quotes. Period inside or outside the marks? I feel like I equivocate on this an awful lot.

Period outside the quotation mark, exclamation and question marks inside the quotation mark.

Incidently, a pet peve of mine is using "quote" as a noun. Quotation is a noun, quote is a verb.

Here's one: what pronoun to use for a person of unknown gender? Do you use the gender-neutral variant of "he", do you use some freakish hybrid of "shim, hir, he/she, etc., or do you use a plural pronoun like "their"?

Here's one: what pronoun to use for a person of unknown gender? Do you use the gender-neutral variant of "he", do you use some freakish hybrid of "shim, hir, he/she, etc., or do you use a plural pronoun like "their"?

I generally defer to "he" or "one", but "they" has become acceptable.

If one lives in a glass house, one should not throw stones.
If someone lives in a glass house, he should not throw stones.
If someone lives in a glass house, they should not throw stones.

In that order.

Which sounds right to you?

Each of the students is doing homework.
Each of the students are doing homework.

Discuss!
This isn't homework, just something that came up in class.

I didn't read all the posts, so I apologize if this has already been said:

"of the students" is a prepositional phrase, and does not need to be in the sentence. It does not affect the subject ("each"), therefore the sentences could be read:
Each is doing homework.
Each are doing homework.

"Each" indicates "one", so "is doing" is grammatically correct.

NOw, what's interesting is, if you change one word in the sentence - "They each are doing their homework," "they" becomes the subject, and the verb changes to the plural "are"... yeah, I'm pathetic, thanks for asking.

Period outside the quotation mark, exclamation and question marks inside the quotation mark.

Incidently, a pet peve of mine is using "quote" as a noun. Quotation is a noun, quote is a verb.

are you sure? I think it has to do w/ whether or not the word in quotes is "part" of the sentence.

For example: Did the note say, "pay by Friday"? or Sherri wants to know how to spell "fleece". If I am remembering correctly, the punctuation mark is part of the greater sentence, and so goes outside the quotation marks.

I got a different question. When referring to a band do you use is or are?
example

The Beatles are a band
The Beatles is a band

Which one is correct?

I'd guess that the proper wording would be:
"The Beatles" is a band's name.
The Beatles are a band.

1.Because the name "The Beatles", between quotation marks, is a single sentence (two words).
2.Because "The Beatles", without quotation marks, is plural - and the verb has to be conjugated with the same number of the subject. "a band" isn't the subject of the clause, it's the noun of the nominal predicative.

Each student does homework. Avoids the problem.

Wouldn't "All students do homework" be correct, too?

I got a different question. When referring to a band do you use is or are?
example

The Beatles are a band
The Beatles is a band

Which one is correct?

Neither, the Beatles broke up a long time ago, and two of them are dead. The Beatles were a band.

I guess native English speakers like to write the way they talk and spoken English doesn't always follow all the rules of written English.

That's strange to me. We Italians also have a sharp divide between "colloquial language" and "proper language", but usually we try to stick to "proper language" when writing - unless it's SMS-ese.

I guess native English speakers like to write the way they talk and spoken English doesn't always follow all the rules of written English.

Not all of us.

Iirc whether a collective noun (like team) is taken to be plural or singular is different between British and American English. I think American does singular and British plural.

And it only matters to crazy people

That's strange to me. We Italians also have a sharp divide between "colloquial language" and "proper language", but usually we try to stick to "proper language" when writing - unless it's SMS-ese.

I think that's something fairly common in Romance languages. Spanish has, also, a "colloquial language" and a "proper language". I try to, as much as I can, to stick to the "proper language" when writing, even if I'm called stuck up. Spending a lot of time in between English speakers can, at times, prevent me from being too formal.

are you sure? I think it has to do w/ whether or not the word in quotes is "part" of the sentence.

For example: Did the note say, "pay by Friday"? or Sherri wants to know how to spell "fleece". If I am remembering correctly, the punctuation mark is part of the greater sentence, and so goes outside the quotation marks.

correct. I was considering a different type of quotation: more the type that would be encountered in an English essay. The ones you cited wouldn't have their own punctuation, or, if they did, it was not quoted.

*gasps* What? you mean English is not a Romance language! *shocked expression*

Of course not. But even you, yourself, said (concerning the splitting of infinitives) that it was once considered proper form to follow Latin structure as closely as possible. Pure English ≠ olde Anglish.

You misunderstand me. A church bishop who knew nothing about English other than that he spoke it wrote a book dictating that it was improper to split infinitives, simply because in Latin you cannot split infinitives, when in fact there is absolutely no reason to follow that rule except that the bishop (who had no authority) said not to.

English is Germanic, so there is absolutely no reason for it to follow Latin except for a prescriptive and irrational desire to based on a silly notion that Latin is somehow a better language than English simply because it's Latin and not English.

Barely.

No, it's really not. English vocabulary borrows a lot from Latin and French, but the grammar is nothing like either.

I guess native English speakers like to write the way they talk and spoken English doesn't always follow all the rules of written English.

Spoken English is what matters. Written English is just a tool to write down spoken English and should be based on spoken English.

Or sign language. There's a stripped-down language for you.

Using a single word for every semi-tangible "thing" seems like a good idea when you're first learning a language, but it makes for pretty crap poetry.

You clearly have not seen much sign language poetry.
Also, what do you mean by sign language? ASL? BSL? FSL? Auslan? Chinese Sign Languge? Russian Sign Language? There's more than one, you know.

The reason sign languages have a more limited vocabulary compared to spoken language is because 1) for the most part, they're younger, and 2) because you can be more expressive when signing a single word than you can with an entire paragraph of spoken English. Signs can have entire English sentences worth of meaning, not to mention all the connotations and inflections.

While on the subject: Sentence ending in quotes. Period inside or outside the marks? I feel like I equivocate on this an awful lot.

Depends. Is the punctuation spoken inside the quotation marks or not?

He said "What's up?" (He asked what is up)
He said "What's up"? (You're asking if he said "what's up")

You misunderstand me. A church bishop who knew nothing about English other than that he spoke it wrote a book dictating that it was improper to split infinitives, simply because in Latin you cannot split infinitives, when in fact there is absolutely no reason to follow that rule except that the bishop (who had no authority) said not to.

English is Germanic, so there is absolutely no reason for it to follow Latin except for a prescriptive and irrational desire to based on a silly notion that Latin is somehow a better language than English simply because it's Latin and not English.

You seem to be forgetting, as a uni student and an English speaker, that your language was, at one point, greatly influenced by Latin. It is true, English is a Germanic language, but it absorbed a lot from Latin, historically.

No, it's really not. English vocabulary borrows a lot from Latin and French, but the grammar is nothing like either.
It's also very little like German. Lack of case endings, verbs all over the place etc.

You seem to be forgetting, as a uni student and an English speaker, that your language was, at one point, greatly influenced by Latin. It is true, English is a Germanic language, but it absorbed a lot from Latin, historically.

No, I understand that. I know that 60% of English words are French in origin (which ultimately leads back to Latin) and another big bit comes directly from Latin and Greek.

But that's vocabulary, not grammar. Grammatically, there is still no reason to follow Latin.

It's also very little like German. Lack of case endings, verbs all over the place etc.

But it's still fundamentally a different kind of language from Latin. Latin is a synthetic language, in which there are a great deal of bound morphemes that come together to create meaning. English is an analytic language: most of the morphemes are free morphemes with relatively few modifying bound morphemes, and it is the order in which the free morphemes are constructed within the sentence that creates meaning. German, for the record, is also an analytic language.

For that matter, German and Germanic are different words that mean completely different things. French and Spanish are both Romance languages, but they're still very different. Germanic does not mean German, it means German and English share an origin.

And hey, Russian has case endings. Does that make it a Germanic language, just because it's similar to German in that way?

No, I understand that. I know that 60% of English words are French in origin (which ultimately leads back to Latin) and another big bit comes directly from Latin and Greek.

But that's vocabulary, not grammar. Grammatically, there is still no reason to follow Latin.

Yes, but there also seems to be no reason to deny the fact that Latin did influenced English. And when you come right down into translation, English resembles French, for example, sintaxis-wise, more than it resembles Spanish or Italian.

Yes, but there also seems to be no reason to deny the fact that Latin did influenced English. And when you come right down into translation, English resembles French, for example, sintaxis-wise, more than it resembles Spanish or Italian.

I don't deny Latin's influence. But ultimately, the people who dictate the grammar rules of a language are its native speakers. The native speakers of English use it like a Germanic language and split infinitives and put prepositions at the ends of sentences and so on, so to say those are grammatically incorrect is an arbitrary decision based on your own opinion (or that of Robert Lowth and similar "grammarians") of how English should be rather than actual usage which shows how it is.

I don't deny Latin's influence. But ultimately, the people who dictate the grammar rules of a language are its native speakers. The native speakers of English use it like a Germanic language and split infinitives and put prepositions at the ends of sentences and so on, so to say those are grammatically incorrect is an arbitrary decision based on your own opinion (or that of Robert Lowth and similar "grammarians") of how English should be rather than actual usage which shows how it is.

I'm not saying it is incorrect. It is not, and I'm sure you know that quite well, we're talking about your native language.

I'm not saying it is incorrect. It is not, and I'm sure you know that quite well, we're talking about your native language.

I'm just arguing against prescriptivist grammar and trying to make NSG understand that English, despite its various influences, is still a Germanic language.

I'm just arguing against prescriptivist grammar and trying to make NSG understand that English, despite its various influences, is still a Germanic language.

Whoever on NSG thinks English is not a Germanic language is either dumb or has no true knowledge of the language. Eben I know that, and I'm not a native speaker.

I don't deny Latin's influence. But ultimately, the people who dictate the grammar rules of a language are its native speakers. The native speakers of English use it like a Germanic language and split infinitives and put prepositions at the ends of sentences and so on, so to say those are grammatically incorrect is an arbitrary decision based on your own opinion (or that of Robert Lowth and similar "grammarians") of how English should be rather than actual usage which shows how it is.

Your distinction elides a gray area that appears when a prescription is adopted by enough speakers for it to become standard usage for at least some part of the native-speaking population. (The obvious example isn't in syntax but in spelling: Noah Webster is responsible for a few of the differences between British and American English.)

Whoever on NSG thinks English is not a Germanic language is either dumb or has no true knowledge of the language. Eben I know that, and I'm not a native speaker.

Indeed. It is NSG, after all.

Your distinction elides a gray area that appears when a prescription is adopted by enough speakers for it to become standard usage for at least some part of the native-speaking population. (The obvious example isn't in syntax but in spelling: Noah Webster is responsible for a few of the differences between British and American English.)

True enough. And when that happens, descriptive grammar should describe that. But the difference ultimately lies in that descriptive grammar doesn't tell anyone how they should speak. It just tells you how everyone else is doing it and leaves it up to you whether or not you want to talk like them. To that end, the only "wrong" grammar is anything that keeps you from being understood (which means speaking "properly" in to country bumpkins is, descriptively, bad grammar if they can't understand you).

Depends. Is the punctuation spoken inside the quotation marks or not?

He said "What's up?" (He asked what is up)
He said "What's up"? (You're asking if he said "what's up")
He said "What's up?"? (you're asking if he asked what is up!)

I'm just arguing against prescriptivist grammar

What you are unclear on is what you think the alternative to prescriptivist grammar would be and why that alternative would be better.

You also seem to assume--rather than explain why--written grammar should simply conform to spoken usage. There are merits to both descriptive and prescriptive grammar, but the focus should -- as I noted earlier -- be on clarity of communication. Writing naturally requires more precision because it lacks the verbal and non-verbal clues as to meaning.

It's also very little like German. Lack of case endings, verbs all over the place etc.

Germanic =/= German.

Germanic includes German, English, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Afrikaans, Danish, and several others.

What you are unclear on is what you think the alternative to prescriptivist grammar would be and why that alternative would be better.

You also seem to assume--rather than explain why--written grammar should simply conform to spoken usage. There are merits to both descriptive and prescriptive grammar, but the focus should -- as I noted earlier -- be on clarity of communication. Writing naturally requires more precision because it lacks the verbal and non-verbal clues as to meaning.

The alternative is descriptive grammar. Speak and write English the way everyone else does to the greatest clarity of meaning. Be proper to the register. IE: NSG is a more formal register (since we're all trying to make ourselves seem really really smart). So speak formally and follow all the prescriptive rules because that's what's expected and people will jump on you if you don't.

As for writing, it should conform to spoken language, yes, but obviously it can't be exactly the same. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to get as close as you can. Presumably, you're speaking for the greatest clarity, so writing exactly what you speak shouldn't be a problem since it's already as clear as you can get it.

The alternative is descriptive grammar. Speak and write English the way everyone else does to the greatest clarity of meaning. Be proper to the register. IE: NSG is a more formal register (since we're all trying to make ourselves seem really really smart). So speak formally and follow all the prescriptive rules because that's what's expected and people will jump on you if you don't.

As for writing, it should conform to spoken language, yes, but obviously it can't be exactly the same. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to get as close as you can. Presumably, you're speaking for the greatest clarity, so writing exactly what you speak shouldn't be a problem since it's already as clear as you can get it.

but but but...those snobs. They want to speak French without actually learning it. And Latin too! Why should they have to take the time to learn French and Latin when they can just shove some random French and Latin rules into the language? It's not like a language becomes harder to learn when you shove random rules and words into it like no tomorrow.

How do you expect them to call the commoners mentally retarded and uneducated if the English language had only English rules and a dozen thousand words that break the rules anyway?

The alternative is descriptive grammar. Speak and write English the way everyone else does to the greatest clarity of meaning. Be proper to the register. IE: NSG is a more formal register (since we're all trying to make ourselves seem really really smart). So speak formally and follow all the prescriptive rules because that's what's expected and people will jump on you if you don't.

I was well aware that prescriptive grammar can be contrasted with descriptive grammar -- as I expressly noted in the post to which you are responding.

What you aren't addressing is (1) how exactly rules of descriptive grammar would differ in substance from prescriptive rules and (2) why those differences would be desirable.

As for writing, it should conform to spoken language, yes, but obviously it can't be exactly the same. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to get as close as you can. Presumably, you're speaking for the greatest clarity, so writing exactly what you speak shouldn't be a problem since it's already as clear as you can get it.

Except, as I noted, speaking involves several modes of communicating meaning of which writing cannot take advantage -- changes in tone, nonverbal clues like facial expression, changes in speed or emphasis, the ability to adjust to the listener's reactions, etc.

The exact same words spoken aloud may not convey the same meaning as those same words written on a blank page.

Hate the serial comma. I am a great fan of commas in general, but even I get bogged down by that little bastard. I never use it.

*snip*

While on the subject: Sentence ending in quotes. Period inside or outside the marks? I feel like I equivocate on this an awful lot.

The Oxford comma is your friend.

Period outside the quotation mark, exclamation and question marks inside the quotation mark.

Depends on context. A quote as part of a sentence finishes inside the quotation marks. A quote as an example finishes outside.

It was Emerson who said "whoso would be a man would be a nonconformist."

Emerson termed such people "nonconformists".

Incidently, a pet peve of mine is using "quote" as a noun. Quotation is a noun, quote is a verb.

Really? So if I go out and get an insurance or other price quote, I'm not using a noun? Interesting. Again, it's all about context.

are you sure? I think it has to do w/ whether or not the word in quotes is "part" of the sentence.

For example: Did the note say, "pay by Friday"? or Sherri wants to know how to spell "fleece". If I am remembering correctly, the punctuation mark is part of the greater sentence, and so goes outside the quotation marks.

This is correct, in my experience and received pedagogy.

I was well aware that prescriptive grammar can be contrasted with descriptive grammar -- as I expressly noted in the post to which you are responding.

What you aren't addressing is (1) how exactly rules of descriptive grammar would differ in substance from prescriptive rules and (2) why those differences would be desirable.

What do you mean substance? How can I be clearer? Descriptive is descriptive, prescriptive is prescriptive. That is the substance. They are opposites. The substance of the difference between them is the difference between voluntary and obligatory - the difference between simply making yourself understood and making yourself be accepted according to a set of arbitrary criteria.

Except, as I noted, speaking involves several modes of communicating meaning of which writing cannot take advantage -- changes in tone, nonverbal clues like facial expression, changes in speed or emphasis, the ability to adjust to the listener's reactions, etc.

The exact same words spoken aloud may not convey the same meaning as those same words written on a blank page.

Again, I said write like we speak, not write exactly what we speak. Word choice, word order, and especially punctuation can do a great deal to convey the same meaning as the envisioned spoken sentence. And no, it won't be perfect; it will never be perfect. What's your point? Ultimately, written language is an extension of spoken language, and should reflect. It will be different, yes, but it will be more similar than different, because when it's all put on paper, you can still read it out loud and it will make just as much sense spoken as written.

Indeed. It is NSG, after all.

And with my quote I just realize I commited a horrible spelling mistake. It's even not eben. :(

And with my quote I just realize I commited a horrible spelling mistake. It's even not eben. :(

I figured it was either that, or you did it on purpose to make a point.

I figured it was either that, or you did it on purpose to make a point.

It mas a mistake. I am past trying to make points on NSG.:wink:

It mas a mistake.
No mas!

No mas!

Pero tío, ponete un soquete na cara. Joé!

Which sounds right to you?

Each of the students is doing homework.
Each of the students are doing homework.

Discuss!
This isn't homework, just something that came up in class.
"Each of the students is doing homework."

Each one is doing homework.

Each one are doing homework would be "Each of the students are doing homework." and that's terrible.
Also, for discussion: the Oxford comma. Obsolete? Useful? Pretentious?
Useful.

"Each of the students is doing homework."

Each one is doing homework.

Each one are doing homework would be "Each of the students are doing homework." and that's terrible.

Useful.

Succinct.

You know what's annoying? When people add Romantic rules to a Germanic language. What's the point? I thought back then the English hated the French. Why would the English try to make their language more French? And what the hell is up with the British and their U's? Does adding a silent vowel to a perfectly good word make it easier to understand? And what's the point of pointlessly adding Romantic rules to a Germanic language if rules are going to be broken left and right? I before E, except after C. But what about weird and ancient? Whoops.

English is one of the hardest languages to learn. Escpecially British English. Those people think that just because they invented it that they should be adding random silent vowels left and right. Guess why nobody really wants to learn your version. It's because they can't decide if it's Germanic or Romantic.

And why can't people get that "One=is. Two or more=are. Each=one"?

Succinct.
*looks up word*

That's good, isn't it? :)

And what the hell is up with the British and their U's? Does adding a silent vowel to a perfectly good word make it easier to understand?
Those people think that just because they invented it that they should be adding random silent vowels left and right.
Wow.

That's one ignorant approach to the English language. Maybe you didn't know, but the Us were there to begin with - until the U.S. Americans decided that geographical distance wasn't enough to tell them apart from the British and started omitting vowels.

*looks up word*

That's good, isn't it? :)

Not that you have to look it up, no.

You know what's annoying? When people add Romantic rules to a Germanic language. What's the point? I thought back then the English hated the French. Why would the English try to make their language more French? And what the hell is up with the British and their U's? Does adding a silent vowel to a perfectly good word make it easier to understand? And what's the point of pointlessly adding Romantic rules to a Germanic language if rules are going to be broken left and right? I before E, except after C. But what about weird and ancient? Whoops.
Well the French ruled us for a while, then we were sort of joint ruled then split off and so on and so on. English really is bastard language.


English is one of the hardest languages to learn. Escpecially British English. Those people think that just because they invented it that they should be adding random silent vowels left and right. Guess why nobody really wants to learn your version. It's because they can't decide if it's Germanic or Romantic.

And why can't people get that "One=is. Two or more=are. Each=one"?

Iirc English is quite easy to pick up basics of but very hard to master. It's easier to build sentences from words than the romance languages I think. The irregularities make fluency harder.

You know what's annoying? When people add Romantic rules to a Germanic language.
I guess that declension would be an example of that "Romantic" rules (Romance, by the way!) of yours. Might I suggest you to take a peep at German grammar?


English is one of the hardest languages to learn. Escpecially British English.
AHAHAH! :tongue:
English is BY FAR THE EASIEST language I've ever studied (currently 5 within formal courses - and no, I wasn't taught English by anyone).

AHAHAH! :tongue:
English is BY FAR THE EASIEST language I've ever studied (currently 5 within formal courses - and no, I wasn't taught English by anyone).

Have you ever been to the American south? They call that shyte English, too.

Have you ever been to the American south? They call that shyte English, too.

No. But I've been to Wales and Scotland (and I was on my own!). It was a sort of "speak English or starve" situation, you know.

I guess that -let's say- a Texan would be able to understand me, and that I would be able to understand him - if he spoke slowly, of course. And he would understand if I wrote in English. So, no big deal.

By the way, about regional variations, learn proper Italian, then try and understand a Sicilian or a Livornese speaking what they call Italian.

No. But I've been to Wales and Scotland (and I was on my own!). It was a sort of "speak English or starve" situation, you know.

That would be another good example.

Again, I said write like we speak, not write exactly what we speak.

How marvelously vague.

Word choice, word order, and especially punctuation can do a great deal to convey the same meaning as the envisioned spoken sentence. And no, it won't be perfect; it will never be perfect.

And unless you're determined to invent new rules of punctuation, you'll most likely lose clarity of meaning. Edward Albee's practically cornered the market on exclamation points trying to fit spoken grammar on to the written page. People who can write like they speak already speak like they write.

Ultimately, written language is an extension of spoken language, and should reflect. It will be different, yes, but it will be more similar than different, because when it's all put on paper, you can still read it out loud and it will make just as much sense spoken as written.

That rather depends on the reader. As TCT said already, you're losing so much information when you write down spoken language that you're often opening up bus-sized holes of ambiguity for your readers. Watch a Drama 101 class butcher Mamet sometime.

Not that you have to look it up, no.
Hehe, clever. (No, that was unfortunate. But now I know. I know! :eek2:)

I would tend to ignore the "each of" portion of the sentence, as it adds unnecessary clarification to what the speaker/author would be describing, "the students"...

However, as they are both apparently correct, a thread about it is about as useful as a hair splitting machine... :tongue:

However, as they are both apparently correct, a thread about it is about as useful as a hair splitting machine... :tongue:

Quite useful if you need half-width hairs.

How marvelously vague.

That's the point.

And unless you're determined to invent new rules of punctuation, you'll most likely lose clarity of meaning. Edward Albee's practically cornered the market on exclamation points trying to fit spoken grammar on to the written page. People who can write like they speak already speak like they write.

What's your point?

That rather depends on the reader. As TCT said already, you're losing so much information when you write down spoken language that you're often opening up bus-sized holes of ambiguity for your readers. Watch a Drama 101 class butcher Mamet sometime.

You have a better solution?