Active Users:1075 Time:11/09/2026 07:27:22 AM
Tom can probably give you actual terms and correct rules, but here's my take on it. Nate Send a noteboard - 05/10/2011 08:43:47 PM
Since I noticed you both (in effect) cited the same objection: Subject/verb agreement. I (perhaps incorrectly) took "Twitter and texting" to be examples of a single general phenomenon suspected to have "eroded proper grammar for today's youths" and so thought nothing of introducing the question with "has." My logic is expounded at better length <a href="http://grammar.about.com/od/c/g/comsubjecterm.htm">here</a>, in an About.com entry written by one Richard Norquist, whose bio there states him to be a Doctor of English with 35 years experience teaching composition:
Normally a subject made up of more than one element takes a plural verb ("The President and Congress are at loggerheads"), although occasionally, when the elements add up to the same idea, the verb is singular ("The wear and tear on the car was tremendous"). But focus an eye on these compound subjects followed by singular verbs, all of which are correct:

Everything in the cupboard and everything on the table was smashed.
Everybody favoring the plan and everybody leaning toward it was interviewed.
Nobody in my house and nobody on my street has been robbed.
Anyone who has read the book and anybody who has even heard of its ideas agrees with the author.


Strange, eh? . . . The explanation would seem to be that in each instance the second 'particularizer' is superfluous and has no grammatical efect; it could just as well be omitted, and in some of the instances the and would change to or. . . .

"An odd quirk that proves nothing aside from the fact that some rules do have exceptions."
(Theodore Bernstein, Miss Thistlebottom's Hobgoblins, 1971)

Bolding is mine, for emphasis (and yes, I noticed that he mispelled "effect." Several of the examples here, the first especially, are similar to the language in question eight: "Everything on the table" and "everything in the cupboard" are clearly and wholly distinct groups, but a singular verb is used to reference the singular destruction of both groups.


In the examples used in the quoted piece, you are talking about two distinct groups, but the key is that they both begin with the same qualifier, the same key to the subject -- everything on the table and everything in the cupboard. They are expanded into two groups, but they are part of the same root -- everything. It could just as easily be stated as "everything on the table and in the cupboard was smashed." The verb, "was", depends on the true subject, which is "everything", which is singular. In that case, "everything" has been expanded into two sub-groups, but they are still part of the same singular subject. It is the same with the other examples he used.

In the case of "wear and tear", that has come to be regarded as singular simply because they are always used together, they are partners in crime, they form a singular idea, as he noted. "Twitter and texting" are not at that point where they would generally be accepted by society as representing a singular idea, regardless of whether or not DK meant them as a singular idea.

That's my take, anywho.
Warder to starry_nite

Chapterfish — Nate's Writing Blog
http://chapterfish.wordpress.com
Reply to message
Grammar junkies - 05/10/2011 06:46:31 PM 1203 Views
I'm not always sure that I'm correct, but.... - 05/10/2011 07:04:13 PM 905 Views
I didn't see any errors - 05/10/2011 07:24:27 PM 890 Views
Re: I didn't see any errors - 06/10/2011 03:14:07 PM 763 Views
You mean ... - 06/10/2011 03:58:32 PM 860 Views
Must ... have ... grammar. - 05/10/2011 07:53:34 PM 1079 Views
For you and Tom as well, the same question about question eight. - 05/10/2011 08:33:39 PM 1377 Views
Tom can probably give you actual terms and correct rules, but here's my take on it. - 05/10/2011 08:43:47 PM 854 Views
That makes sense as far as it goes. - 05/10/2011 09:02:42 PM 927 Views
But do you actually regard them that way? - 05/10/2011 09:08:36 PM 872 Views
Yeah, pretty much. - 05/10/2011 09:25:18 PM 842 Views
Re: Yeah, pretty much. - 05/10/2011 09:29:33 PM 716 Views
OK then. - 05/10/2011 09:59:50 PM 878 Views
You bring up a point that I was researching the other day - 05/10/2011 08:53:40 PM 919 Views
You guys mean a hyphen, not a dash. - 05/10/2011 09:00:25 PM 886 Views
You're right of course! - 05/10/2011 09:13:44 PM 953 Views
I frequently am. - 05/10/2011 09:16:38 PM 956 Views
So I've noticed. - 05/10/2011 09:19:38 PM 887 Views
I like telling people, too. - 05/10/2011 09:34:50 PM 876 Views
You can use charmap. - 05/10/2011 10:21:32 PM 909 Views
Re: You guys mean a hyphen, not a dash. - 06/10/2011 01:15:02 PM 812 Views
Mmm, dashing. - 05/10/2011 09:02:53 PM 867 Views
Emdashing is an entirely different form of punctuation. - 05/10/2011 09:07:36 PM 954 Views
Achtung! Grammatik! :insert Nazi-saluting smiley as the Wehrmacht marches by: - 05/10/2011 08:10:45 PM 984 Views
I love this bit. - 05/10/2011 08:26:52 PM 962 Views
Bring back the BSG! - 05/10/2011 08:55:32 PM 914 Views
Re: your 2nd irritating error for question 2 - 06/10/2011 04:12:49 PM 837 Views
Good poll, especially for this site. - 05/10/2011 08:11:10 PM 988 Views
Re: serial comma. - 05/10/2011 08:31:58 PM 871 Views
Maybe I was being a little anal there. - 05/10/2011 08:35:33 PM 846 Views
Same here - 05/10/2011 08:43:34 PM 737 Views
I think it's conventional to use a comma before "etc". - 05/10/2011 08:55:11 PM 820 Views
Re: Grammar junkies - 05/10/2011 08:33:06 PM 878 Views
Re: Grammar junkies - 05/10/2011 08:49:43 PM 939 Views
People should talk in a way that can be understood, else they are not communicating. - 05/10/2011 09:17:37 PM 931 Views
Re: "everyone's". ~winky~ *NM* - 05/10/2011 09:22:18 PM 428 Views
Is it time for my lecture on superfluous apostrophes again? - 05/10/2011 09:43:47 PM 836 Views
You mean your lecture on "superfluous" apostrophes. - 05/10/2011 09:53:31 PM 787 Views
As have I. Multiple times. *NM* - 05/10/2011 09:55:08 PM 411 Views
I am not stubborn, just true to my convictions. - 05/10/2011 09:56:39 PM 1037 Views
Unsurprisingly, I don't really agree with you at all on this point. :p - 05/10/2011 10:29:59 PM 925 Views
I do not really think I am "right" on this one so much as "not wrong." - 06/10/2011 12:01:36 AM 856 Views
But contradictions are inherent in the entire English language! - 06/10/2011 01:25:39 AM 839 Views
Sure, but not deliberate ones created by grammarians who know better. - 06/10/2011 05:40:58 AM 835 Views
I'm going to listen to the others. - 06/10/2011 06:17:18 AM 859 Views
Like I say, I appreciate exceptions when justified (and again, only claiming to be "not wrong." ) - 06/10/2011 07:26:18 AM 746 Views
But you are wrong - 06/10/2011 02:17:40 PM 902 Views
that is OK he is very good at being wrong *NM* - 06/10/2011 03:43:23 PM 440 Views
I disagree. - 07/10/2011 12:15:14 AM 825 Views
How utterly unsurprising - 07/10/2011 02:21:38 PM 821 Views
"We want to be nothing if not persistent." - 07/10/2011 02:39:19 PM 853 Views
Doesn't matter. - 07/10/2011 03:12:14 PM 850 Views
What. - 06/10/2011 06:17:41 PM 932 Views
You called? - 05/10/2011 08:53:54 PM 921 Views
Grammar schmammar! - 05/10/2011 09:01:47 PM 953 Views
Wongy tip #77 - 05/10/2011 11:15:12 PM 812 Views
#1) I do not use NetSpeak while playing games, texting or using social media. - 05/10/2011 11:34:12 PM 809 Views
What about NateSpeak? *NM* - 06/10/2011 04:01:08 PM 399 Views
I did use that once to tell the story of you and CNRedDragon going to see Ice Princess. *NM* - 07/10/2011 01:46:50 AM 431 Views
A timeless classic. - 07/10/2011 01:53:36 AM 789 Views
Re: Grammar junkies - 06/10/2011 01:17:28 AM 840 Views
Yes. - 06/10/2011 06:53:46 AM 776 Views
I forgot about "of" for "have." - 06/10/2011 07:31:11 AM 820 Views
I try - 06/10/2011 09:18:29 AM 887 Views
I freebase split infinitives on a regular basis. - 06/10/2011 01:53:36 PM 739 Views
The split infinitive is not grammatically incorrect. - 06/10/2011 02:04:34 PM 836 Views
I wish more people knew this. - 06/10/2011 07:38:46 PM 769 Views
Junky Grammar. - 06/10/2011 04:24:01 PM 789 Views

Reply to Message