En nog wysheid van Corn¨¦:
This reminds me of a related discussion?we had a while ago (Barbara Hathorn?) about the subject-verb agreement in this sentence:
Ethnic and racial diversity is/are problematic.
The structure of the main clause is simple: the subject is "diversity" and the predicate is the copulative verb plus an adjective.
One would think that the concord will be equally simple: diversity is problematic - the singular form of the verb (is) is governed by the singular subject (diversity).
But, because the abstract?noun is modified by two (or more) adjectives referring to different varieties of things denoted by the abstract noun, we have an unusual plural through the principle of synesis:
Ethnic and racial diversity are problematic.
Look at the following sentences with a similar construction:
Classical and modern sculpture have (not: has) little in common.
Pre-Socratic and modern philosophy share (not: shares) a purpose.
Greek, Roman and Etruscan art differ (not: differs) in many ways.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 23 May 2025, at 13:30, Elsabe Birkenmayer via groups.io <elsabeb@...> wrote:
Tony, hier is die antwoorde. Die eerste een is van John Linnegar:
To test, the trick is often to turn the question into a statement:?The outlet pipe was loosened and the impeller was inspected.??But:?The outlet pipe and the impeller were respectively loosened and inspected.
John
En die tweede een is van Corn¨¦ Janse van Rensburg:
You have two main clauses each with its own subject and predicate: "the outlet pipe was loosened" and "the impeller was inspected".
If you change the sentence from statement?to question, the structure remains the?same.
Was the outlet pipe loosened and [was] the impeller inspected?
Corn¨¦ (captious but callipygian)
To prevent you from inadvertently mismodifying me, my adjectives appear above. As my ekphrastic identity is developing, my adjectives will be changing from time to time.
Pax tecum AVC MMDCCLXXVIII
On 23 May 2025, at 11:22, Tony Moen via groups.io <transed@...> wrote:
Was the outlet pipe loosened and the impeller inspected?
Or
Were the outlet pipe loosened and the impeller inspected?
?
My gut initially voted for the second, my brain wants to know why.
?
So what should my brain tell my gut?
?
1???????????? If the above question is turned into a statement, it becomes (obviously):
The outlet pipe was loosened and the impeller inspected.
The argument here is that the verb is left out in the second clause because it¡¯s the same as in the first and we¡¯re simple avoiding a repetition.
?
If the same principle applies to the question as to the statement, then we would say ¡°Was the outlet pipe loosened and [was] the impeller inspected?¡±
?
2???????????? And of course one could say ¡°were the outlet pipe¡¡± simply sounds wrong and what I would call the ¡°proximity rule¡± applies, as in the case of ¡°neither the girls nor the boy was at fault¡± (verb agrees with nearest subject).
?
Somehow I could be convinced more readily by argument 1 than by argument 2, but it comes to the same thing.?
?
?
