My first reaction is that there are a few I make intentionally with at least moderate regularity, but right now they're not coming to mind.

For at least a fair number of people who are otherwise sticklers, we have intentional errors to avoid awkwardness:

• data as singular
• they/their as singular (particularly with "everybody" and the like) (and yes, I realize many are going to say this isn't an error; I'm talking about those who think it is an error, but sometimes do it anyway [I'm in this group])
• others?

The word "this" is correct in both sentences if "data" is used as a mass noun here, which it almost always is. Number 2 is correct for "used".

A need to say "these data" would be determined by the context surrounding the sentence, but there is no way to know if the author meant countable data here. That isn't a common case in my opinion.

From an essay that provides an excellent critique of the man who created the TV show "The Dog Whisperer":
http://ladycyon.tumblr.com/post/2155...-dog-whisperer

I think this is a good example of how a malapropism ("exhume" for "exude") undercuts the authority of the author. (As that passage suggests, he's also casual with his use of punctuation. And he later misuses "begs the question.")

Okay, I'm having this stupid fight on Facebook about this sentence construction.

One gal asks for help on this:

"A couple of processes are complicated." She wanted to know if the verb "are" is referring to "couple" or processes" and if it should be singular, not plural.

I said that subject of the sentence is "processes", not "couple," and so the verb should be plural - "are."

Another gal comes in and says basically the same thing - that the verb should be plural. Duh. But she then says that the subject of the sentence is not "processes," but "couple." and that the subject can't be after a preposition like "of."

I argued that "a couple" is simply modifying "processes," just like how if I had written "12 processes are complicated," the number "12" is modifying "processes."

She says no.

WTF

So tell me, OOT...what are the subjects of these sentences:

• A couple of apples are rotten.
• Twelve apples are rotten.
• Twelve of fifteen apples are rotten.

Your subjects are:

couple
apples
twelve

Subjects can't follow the preposition "of".

Consider this sentence:

"One of twelve apples are rotten."

Assuming we are not speaking of a proportion (one in *every* twelve) but are speaking of a specific set of apples with an implied "the" before "twelve", then it should actually be:

"One of twelve apples is rotten."

Used that way, the sentence has a singular subject, which is the word "one". Not "apples".


In your original argument, you are both wrong.

"A couple of processes are complicated."

The subject is "couple" but it is a plural word, requiring "are" for the verb. The article "a" doesn't make it singular. Compare it to saying

"a lot of processes are complicated"

with subject "lot", or

"a ****load of processes are complicated"

with subject "****load". Articles have to match the countable sense of the noun.

A couple... are complicated.
A processes... are complicated.

the subject being "couple" makes no sense. Why can't the subject be "a couple of processes" as a phrase?

And there was no question of the plural vs. singular. The argument was about what word was the subject.

In my mind, the 2nd apples sentence is using "twelve" as a modifier. The third one is doing the same thing with "twelve of fifteen." Who cares if a preposition is in there?

the subject can't be "couple" in the first or "twelve" in the 3rd sentence. That makes no sense.

We're not talking about "couples" or "twelves." Whatever that is. We're talking about "apples."

Thanks for your opinion.

I think the "one of twelve apples" example above makes it pretty clear that the word before "of" is definitely the subject.

What complicates this further is that "couple" is sometimes used to refer to a singular unit (like a married couple), which is why she might be thinking singular verb, but in this case it's the more standard colloquial meaning of "approximately two of the processes are complicated".

You are talking about a specific "couple" of apples. You can leave out the prepositional phrase "of apples" entirely and as long as the audience knows the context, the sentence meaning doesn't change at all, because the subject is intact. That is one test for identifying the subject if the grammar rule isn't clear.

Okay, fair enough.

So what part of speech would apples be in "a couple of apples are rotten?"

I mean, "apples" is obviously a noun, but in that sentence, "of apples" is a prepositional adjective phrase.

If I said "That food on the table looks tasty," you'd never argue that "table" is the subject, right? The construction of that sentence is about the same as "A couple of apples are rotten".

It's a noun used as an object.

This. The phrase functions as an adjective.

Also see:
http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/pa...l-Phrases.html

Prepositional phrases almost always function as adjectives (as in all the examples in this thread) or adverbs.

Here's what I found:

There is, in fact, a somewhat fuzzy distinction between partitive structures and inclusives and Quantifiers formed with of. In a clause such as a lot of students have arrived it is the noun students which determines number agreement on the Finite (have - plural). It is not normally possible to say a lot of students has arrived. Therefore students is the head of the noun group and a lot of is a complex Quantifier. Similarly, it is also normal to say a number of students have arrived not a number of students has arrived, that is, to treat a number of as a complex Quantifier. . .

I'm so confused.

Yeah, but "a lot" and "a number" are plural in this case anyway, despite being singular nouns in a vacuum. Try it this way: "You know those students we were expecting? A lot [or a number] have arrived already." You still don't use has, even with the prepositional phrase moved out of the way.

I say the subject is couple. Because it is a specific portion of processes.

If two of the twelve processes are complicated then you are talking about that specific couple, not the processes themselves. It's a bad word to use, though. Couple has a larger connotation than "two". But as it stands I say it's still the subject.

Grammar is an attempt to impose a description on a linguistic system that, while functioning very well, evolved prior to any formal articulation of rules (and that often solved problems in a patchwork way). Grammar as a description has also evolved over time and more ways than one of analyzing English grammar are now employed. No system has ever seemed entirely adequate to the task.

This point is at the heart of one of the great classics on writing, The Reader Over Your Shoulder, by Robert Graves and Alan Hodge, who observe that we should therefore write for an imagined ideal reader. (It's a fascinating, fussy, witty, and sometimes funny book. It appends to its suggestions for better writing detailed critiques of prose passages from some of the great prose writers, arguing they could do better. I often don't agree with their objections but reading them is thought-provoking.)

I have absolutely nothing to contribute to this thread but I enjoy reading it, especially discussions like the one today. Thanks and keep it up, y'all are some smart mfers.

my jimmies get hella rustled every time i see this phrase jacked up -

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...0482--nhl.html

Lotta problems with that sentence. But then, reporters are often bad writers.

The emergency doors in this casino are labeled "These doors are alarmed."

If they were electrified, would it say "These doors are shocked?"

In before this is correct

I think they aren't anthropomorphising the doors. It's saying that the doors have an alarm attached to them.

Just came across this on the first page.

"mom turns 52, sports a lot, has her own communication office and very social"

I'm normally pretty uninterested in grammar and punctuation but the use of "Sports" as a verb just really annoys me the poster also managed to use emphatic when he meant empathic but that's forgiveable.