Active Users:612 Time:08/03/2026 08:51:04 AM
That makes sense as far as it goes. Joel Send a noteboard - 05/10/2011 09:02:42 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 here, 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.

It makes the rule somewhat subjective though; "wear and tear" are past a tipping point where the related concepts are generally regarded as elements of a single one, while "Twitter and texting" are not, despite the fact that some (e.g. DK and I) already regard them that way.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
Grammar junkies - 05/10/2011 06:46:31 PM 1147 Views
I'm not always sure that I'm correct, but.... - 05/10/2011 07:04:13 PM 842 Views
I didn't see any errors - 05/10/2011 07:24:27 PM 826 Views
Re: I didn't see any errors - 06/10/2011 03:14:07 PM 704 Views
You mean ... - 06/10/2011 03:58:32 PM 792 Views
Must ... have ... grammar. - 05/10/2011 07:53:34 PM 1019 Views
For you and Tom as well, the same question about question eight. - 05/10/2011 08:33:39 PM 1303 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 791 Views
That makes sense as far as it goes. - 05/10/2011 09:02:42 PM 828 Views
But do you actually regard them that way? - 05/10/2011 09:08:36 PM 811 Views
Yeah, pretty much. - 05/10/2011 09:25:18 PM 771 Views
Re: Yeah, pretty much. - 05/10/2011 09:29:33 PM 654 Views
OK then. - 05/10/2011 09:59:50 PM 814 Views
You bring up a point that I was researching the other day - 05/10/2011 08:53:40 PM 861 Views
You guys mean a hyphen, not a dash. - 05/10/2011 09:00:25 PM 822 Views
You're right of course! - 05/10/2011 09:13:44 PM 888 Views
I frequently am. - 05/10/2011 09:16:38 PM 896 Views
So I've noticed. - 05/10/2011 09:19:38 PM 806 Views
I like telling people, too. - 05/10/2011 09:34:50 PM 802 Views
You can use charmap. - 05/10/2011 10:21:32 PM 854 Views
Re: You guys mean a hyphen, not a dash. - 06/10/2011 01:15:02 PM 751 Views
Mmm, dashing. - 05/10/2011 09:02:53 PM 805 Views
Emdashing is an entirely different form of punctuation. - 05/10/2011 09:07:36 PM 876 Views
Achtung! Grammatik! :insert Nazi-saluting smiley as the Wehrmacht marches by: - 05/10/2011 08:10:45 PM 919 Views
I love this bit. - 05/10/2011 08:26:52 PM 904 Views
Bring back the BSG! - 05/10/2011 08:55:32 PM 840 Views
Re: your 2nd irritating error for question 2 - 06/10/2011 04:12:49 PM 775 Views
Good poll, especially for this site. - 05/10/2011 08:11:10 PM 928 Views
Re: serial comma. - 05/10/2011 08:31:58 PM 805 Views
Maybe I was being a little anal there. - 05/10/2011 08:35:33 PM 779 Views
Same here - 05/10/2011 08:43:34 PM 683 Views
I think it's conventional to use a comma before "etc". - 05/10/2011 08:55:11 PM 759 Views
Re: Grammar junkies - 05/10/2011 08:33:06 PM 819 Views
Re: Grammar junkies - 05/10/2011 08:49:43 PM 878 Views
People should talk in a way that can be understood, else they are not communicating. - 05/10/2011 09:17:37 PM 868 Views
Re: "everyone's". ~winky~ *NM* - 05/10/2011 09:22:18 PM 399 Views
Is it time for my lecture on superfluous apostrophes again? - 05/10/2011 09:43:47 PM 777 Views
You mean your lecture on "superfluous" apostrophes. - 05/10/2011 09:53:31 PM 720 Views
As have I. Multiple times. *NM* - 05/10/2011 09:55:08 PM 382 Views
I am not stubborn, just true to my convictions. - 05/10/2011 09:56:39 PM 972 Views
Unsurprisingly, I don't really agree with you at all on this point. :p - 05/10/2011 10:29:59 PM 864 Views
I do not really think I am "right" on this one so much as "not wrong." - 06/10/2011 12:01:36 AM 783 Views
But contradictions are inherent in the entire English language! - 06/10/2011 01:25:39 AM 769 Views
Sure, but not deliberate ones created by grammarians who know better. - 06/10/2011 05:40:58 AM 782 Views
I'm going to listen to the others. - 06/10/2011 06:17:18 AM 792 Views
Like I say, I appreciate exceptions when justified (and again, only claiming to be "not wrong." ) - 06/10/2011 07:26:18 AM 683 Views
But you are wrong - 06/10/2011 02:17:40 PM 817 Views
that is OK he is very good at being wrong *NM* - 06/10/2011 03:43:23 PM 412 Views
I disagree. - 07/10/2011 12:15:14 AM 760 Views
How utterly unsurprising - 07/10/2011 02:21:38 PM 739 Views
"We want to be nothing if not persistent." - 07/10/2011 02:39:19 PM 787 Views
Doesn't matter. - 07/10/2011 03:12:14 PM 796 Views
What. - 06/10/2011 06:17:41 PM 864 Views
You called? - 05/10/2011 08:53:54 PM 855 Views
Grammar schmammar! - 05/10/2011 09:01:47 PM 888 Views
Wongy tip #77 - 05/10/2011 11:15:12 PM 753 Views
#1) I do not use NetSpeak while playing games, texting or using social media. - 05/10/2011 11:34:12 PM 758 Views
What about NateSpeak? *NM* - 06/10/2011 04:01:08 PM 368 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 389 Views
A timeless classic. - 07/10/2011 01:53:36 AM 727 Views
Re: Grammar junkies - 06/10/2011 01:17:28 AM 782 Views
Yes. - 06/10/2011 06:53:46 AM 717 Views
I forgot about "of" for "have." - 06/10/2011 07:31:11 AM 758 Views
I try - 06/10/2011 09:18:29 AM 810 Views
I freebase split infinitives on a regular basis. - 06/10/2011 01:53:36 PM 687 Views
The split infinitive is not grammatically incorrect. - 06/10/2011 02:04:34 PM 777 Views
I wish more people knew this. - 06/10/2011 07:38:46 PM 713 Views
Junky Grammar. - 06/10/2011 04:24:01 PM 709 Views

Reply to Message