[Grammar] Go+gerund

[Mzungu39]

Mzungu39:

You were very quick to say that you will never be able to agree with a certain construction no matter what evebody else says - be it some authoritives of linguistics or the natives... It doesn't matter. Sure. What the dickens do they know, right? ;-)

I do respect other people's opinions and I am also allowed to express mine.
It's hard to believe that a (good) linguist would say it is grammatically correct if a sg verb agrees with a plural noun... I don't believe that most linguists would agree on that. On the other hand it's a completely different thing if a native says that it sounds fine to him/her or that it is widely used in informal language...

I think it's no use to continue this discussion, though I was enjoying it.

 

[Raymott]

Dear Raymott,
I haven't misunderstood the point. I know that the natives create the language and that the language is changing, developing constantly. However, I cannot agree that the rules change just like that because most people do not follow them when speaking... A lot of things in a language change in time, that's true, but that a singular verb agrees with a plural noun... That's not logical in any language...
I agree. Language is not logical.
It's not logical to use a singular 'they' where the sex of a person is unknown either. Do you believe a singular 'they' is correct English?
Do you accept the English plurals 'sheep' and 'fish'? If so, under which rule of English logic?

I can accept the fact that it is used in spoken or informal language but grammatically it cannot be OK
Well, the funny thing is this. It's the universities and academics who are starting to insist on a singular 'they' because, as you may know, they are hotbeds of feminism and the politically correct use of speech. Hmm, maybe politics has something to do with language too - nothing to do with logic. Is this a possibility?

... I do respect other people's opinions...
So do I. And believe it or not, I respect their right to be wrong.

However it seems that you haven't managed to prove how the discussesd combination (there's + pl. noun) is grammatically fine.
Maybe I haven't managed to because I haven't tried to. Nobody has asked me to. I've never considered language as something that you could really prove logically - there are too many exceptions; and exceptions don't occur in logic. An exception in logic is illogical. An exception in language is normal.
You haven't proved that a singular verb can't be used with a plural
pronoun either.

When all native or non native linguists agree on that I will have to accept it,
That would be a rather lonely position to take.
though unwillingly, since I can see no logic in it...

Logic is fine in its place. I love logic. I like people to be logical.
But you can't logically reject something because it's illogical when that something was never based on logic in the first place.
You'd almost certainly have to accept that there are inconsistencies in any language.
So, would you say that language is logical and inconsistent?

R.

 

[IHIVG]

It seems to be of no use indeed :lol:, but I'll just speak my last piece now before finally leaving this thread.

However it seems that you haven't managed to prove how the discussesd combination (there's + pl. noun) is grammatically fine.

Sorry, this wasn't addressed to me and maybe Raymott would offer you some striking foolproof detailed explanation, but if I were a native my natural gut response to this would be 'How on earth can I prove it?!' Or rather, what kind of proof there needs to be given other than the seemingly common acceptability by people who are responsible for and actually created the thing? It's not a geometric problem or a crime investigation . Besides, a certain linguist's opinion doesn't seem to be credible in your books. So, I would be really at a loss as to what would actually suffice.


Oh and by the way, is it just me or are these two statements smack of contradiction?

I know that the natives create the language and that the language is changing...However, I cannot agree that the rules change just like that because most people do not follow them when speaking...

A lot of things in a language change in time, that's true, but that a singular verb agrees with a plural noun... That's not logical in any language...

 

[Raymott]

Here's an exercise. It doesn't need a reply.

- If the author had their facts right, they would not have written that.
- If any student is late with their assignment, they need to ask for an extension.
Regardless of whether the above are grammatical or not, how do you prove that "they" and its forms are plural, and not new uses of "they" as a singular form?
What is the logical proof that it cannot be singular.
What is the logical proof that "you" can be either singular or plural, but that "they" can't?

 

[Mzungu39]

R.

...
I agree. Language is not logical.
I think that language is logical to some extent. However I must confess that it's a very complex system with a lot of
It's not logical to use a singular 'they' where the sex of a person is unknown either.
I agree. :-D
Do you believe a singular 'they' is correct English? No, I don't. But I accept it in certain cases. It's widely used in dictionaries as a space saving device rather than feminism?!
Do you accept the English plurals 'sheep' and 'fish'? If so, under which rule of English logic?
I do accept exceptions, irregularities.
Maybe there's a reason for the two words having irregular plural. If I checked the ethimological development of the two words, I might find an explanation.

 

[Mzungu39]

OK, I give up. I've said what I think.

I wouldn't have joined this/such a forum asking you questions, asking for help or opinion if I didn't appreciate your help, knowledge, experience ... :up: