2 meaningless grammar questions

[Scarlett67]

Uh, scratch those last two lines left over from cmburns’s quote; I forgot they were there. It’s late.

[Scarlett67]

OK, my grammar maven granted me permission to quote her. The following quotes are from a 1998 discussion on Copyediting-L; the writer is managing editor of a university press, and I dare say most CE-L members (most of whom are, duh, working copyeditors) turn to her for the lowdown on tricky grammar points.

So with no further ado, I give you all my favored expert on the subject. ::applause::

Edward D. Johnson, in The Handbook of Good English, calls this an instance of “simple confusion”: “One of those disasters that often occurs when you’re traveling befell me contains a typical error of agreement caused by confusion. The subject of occurs is the relative pronoun that, which can be either singular or plural, depending on its antecedent. In the example, the antecedent of that is disasters, not One, so the verb should be occur. Since the relationship of the verb to the antecedent is not direct but via the relative pronoun, and perhaps also since One is so strongly singular a word, the error, basic as it is, is not glaring and is easily overlooked.”

Evans and Evans say, “One of must be followed by a plural noun, and this may be followed by a descriptive clause. When it is, the clause verb should, logically, be plural, as in one of the best books that have appeared. Actually, a singular is often used here, as in one of the best books that has appeared. This construction is condemned by many grammarians on the grounds of logic. But it is found in the earliest English and has been used by some of the greatest writers. It shows that the writer still has one in mind. Shelley wrote: I am one of those who am unable to refuse my assent. Here the word I has overridden one and those. This is unusual. But in the United States the more familiar construction, using a third person singular verb, does not offend anyone except grammarians.”

Scarlett here again. Basically what Evans and Evans are saying here is that (as hazel-rah points out) if you use the singular verb, people will know what you mean and probably won’t even notice that the sentence could be formed a different way; however, if you’re seeking a purely grammatically correct solution, then you need to use the plural.

For those who are still confused, let’s try an example that would be nonsensical if you used the singular. Let’s say there are some boys at the local high school who like to swap girlfriends at parties. Would you say “John is one of the boys who likes to sleep with each other’s girlfriends”? Isn’t it obvious here that “one of” means one of a group, plural? “Each other’s” requires at least two people; you can’t say “John is one who likes to sleep with each other’s girlfriends.” John is one of the boys. Which boys? The boys who like to sleep with each other’s girlfriends.

There are people who love words. I am one of them. Thus I am one of those people who love words. I, the one, belong in the group of people who love words.

To further muddy the waters for some of you, however, there are instances in which you would have a “one of the/those” and a singular verb. Again, though, logic will tell you which to use.

Let’s say SandiSu goes to a dance. She’s sitting alone, chair dancing, and a friend says, “Why don’t you dance with one of the men at this table on your left? Those guys like to dance.” A man walking behind them at that time stops and says, “I’m sitting at that table, and I happen to be one of those guys who like to dance; would you join me in a mambo?”

Or perhaps SandiSu’s friend instead says, “Why don’t you ask one of the men sitting at the table on your right to dance with you?” SandiSu replies, “Those guys aren’t dancers.” One of the men stands up, comes over, and says, “Well, I am one of those guys who likes to dance.”
In the first example, the group that the man is “one of” is a group of “guys who like to dance.” He is one man out of a group of guys who like to dance. In the second example, the group that the man is “one of” is simply “those guys” (or “those guys who supposedly aren’t dancers”)–and the fact that he likes to dance is additional information. He is one man out of a group of those guys, and he begs SandiSu’s pardon, but he does indeed like to dance. He might also say, “Well, I am one of those guys, and I do like to dance.”

And I can’t really add to what my esteemed colleague has said.

[SDP]

The study of English usage is a hobby of mine.

The American Heritage Book of English Usage says:

one of those who:  Constructions such as one of those people who pose a different problem. Many people argue that who should be followed by a plural verb in these sentences, as in He is one of those people who just don’’t take “no” for an answer. Their thinking is that the relative pronoun who refers to the plural noun people, not to one. They would extend the rule to constructions with inanimate nouns, as in The sports car turned out to be one of the most successful products that were ever manufactured in this country.

But the use of the singular verb in these constructions is common, even among the best writers. In an earlier survey, 42 percent of the Usage Panel accepted the use of the singular verb in such constructions. It’’s really a matter of which word you feel is most appropriate as the antecedent of the relative pronoun—one or the plural noun in the of phrase that follows it. Note also that when the phrase containing one is introduced by the definite article, the verb in the relative clause must be singular: He is the only one of the students who has (not have) already taken Latin.

The Columbia Guide to Standard English Usage concurs:

The question is one of notional agreement: Is it She is one of those people who worries incessantly or She is one of those people who worry incessantly? Is it only one who worries, or do all of those people worry? Subsequent pronouns can make the choice clear, of course: She is one of those people who worries herself needlessly; She is one of those people who worry themselves needlessly. But either one or those may be the antecedent for who or that or which and so set the grammatical tone in this structure in Standard English. Best advice for Edited English: let the verb agree with the plural substantive except when She is the only one of those people who worries.

(some formatting has been lost in the copying and pasting process)

This makes intuitive sense to me. I think the confusion may arise from what the American Heritage Book of English usage noted at the end of its section on the subject: “when the phrase containing one is introduced by the definite article, the verb in the relative clause must be singular: He is the only one of the students who has (not have) already taken Latin.” In that situation, the verb must be singular, and this may be sticking in people’s minds from when they learned it in school. Questions involving “one of the [plural noun here] + verb choice” were certainly a favorite of one of my English teachers, and they are also featured on some standardized tests.

[quarx]

Thanks for the info, guys, but WHOA, chill out. They’re going to kick this thread to the Pit, and I’ll be known as Quarx, that asshole poster who brings up grammar questions without cites just to start a fight.

Seriously, though, thanks. Now I can sleep at night with visions of grammar books dancing in my head. Or something like that.

[Scarlett67]

Easy there, quarx! Nobody’s fighting on a personal level—at least I’m not. I think we’re just having a spirited debate here. You just happened to ask about one of the many hot buttons of grammar.

*Originally posted by SDP *
**The American Heritage Book of English Usage says:

But the use of the singular verb in these constructions is common, even among the best writers. In an earlier survey, 42 percent of the Usage Panel accepted the use of the singular verb in such constructions.

**

Just to show how hotly this gets debated, let me say that Harper’s Dictionary of Contemporary Usage, which also employs a “Usage Panel,” says that 74% of its panel feels that the plural and singular forms are not interchangeable, and of those, 78% choose the plural and 22% choose the singular. So (as in many grammar and style issues), pick your authority.

And now I must return to the practical application of these matters: a chapter from a math textbook, a chapter from an advertising textbook, and the inside cover matter from a communication textbook that must all be edited or proofread by tomorrow afternoon. It’s gonna be a long night, and a long Friday.

[fixed coding]

[Edited by bibliophage on 10-26-2001 at 01:11 AM]

[Wumpus]

Re: proper nouns.

My own opinion is that the Times is correct. It’s “My brother is in the U.S. Army” on first reference, and “the Army” thereafter. The capitalization is a useful signal to the reader you’re referring to a specific army, not just any old army that’s lying around.

It’s really just the same as the White House rule. Saying your brother lives in the white house down the road is one thing. Saying your brother lives in the White House is something else alogether!

[Scarlett67]

Yes, but “White House” is correct because it’s the proper name of that building. We’re talking about the generic use of a common noun that is also part of a proper-noun title.

The president lives in the White House.

but not

The United States provides a House for its president to live in.

“The House” does not unequivocally denote the White House any more than “the Army” unequivocally denotes the U.S. Army.

As I said before, this is a style choice only. “The Army” is “correct” only if you are following a style guide that prescribes that form, such as NYT style. It is “incorrect” if you are following a style guide that does not, such as any of the other style guides I named.

[galt]

“The House” does not unequivocally denote the White House any more than “the Army” unequivocally denotes the U.S. Army.

Oo! Ooh! What about “The House voted down the blahblah bill 439 to 1”? (“House” being shortened from “House of Representatives”) That seems like a case where capitalization of a fragment of a proper name may be appropriate. Perhaps a commonly-recognizable shortened form of a proper name warrants capitalization, as in “my brother is in the Army”.

And for what it’s worth, I was going to make the case for both 1a and 1b being correct (although not always interchangeable, I suspect), but hazel-rah did it better than I could have.

[Scarlett67]

*Originally posted by galt *
Oo! Ooh! What about “The House voted down the blahblah bill 439 to 1”? (“House” being shortened from “House of Representatives”)

Chicago covers this; see section 7.51:

House of Representatives; the House, the lower house of Congress

This is not a rule that can be applied unequivocally across the board. As I have said several times, you need to refer to a style guide when making these decisions. Panels of experts have spent many hours compiling all these reference works so that the same decisions don’t have to be hemmed and hawed over again and again. If the point you are looking for is not in the style guide, then you can start making arbitrary decisions, but if you’ve ever looked through a style guide, you will know that they are quite comprehensive. I keep quoting Chicago, but the same is true for any style guide.

[Wumpus]

Scarlett: When used as in the example given, “Army” is almost surely a proper noun.

The reason is that the US has more than one (lower case, generic) army. There’s the US Army, and there are the Marines. These are different organizations.

In the US, “My brother is in the army” almost always means he’s specifically in the US Army, not in the Marines, or the Air Force, or the Navy. So in this context, “the army” is just shorthand for the proper noun “US Army,” and hence should be capitalized: “My brother is in the Army.” (Just as you would write, “My brother is in the Marines.”)

(This only holds for the US, of course. Your milage may vary in other countries.)

For a generic term encompassing all the armed forces, there’s always “the military.”

Another example of a proper noun that is commonly abbreviated: In Washington, Capitol Hill is normally referred to simply as “the Hill.” This is always capitalized when written. It would be pretty confusing if it weren’t…

ARTICLE: Lobbyists on the hill believe the bill has no chance of passing.

READER: What hill? Where? And why are these lobbyists standing on a hillside somewhere?

[Izzardesque]

Dunno about the first question but I do have something to say about the second.

Personally, I think it all depends on context. You are right that the House of Representatives can be shortened to the House, but only if it is commonly known that is what you meant.

For example, if you said to someone IN the States ‘My brother is in the Army’, they would probably know that you mean the US Army and therefore you are using a proper name and it should be capitalised, much the same as you would know that a politician in Washington referring the Hill would mean Capitol Hill.

However, if you were speaking to someone outside the States and you said ‘My brother is in the Army’ they wouldn’t know what force you were referring to, just that it wasn’t the navy, air force etc. In which case you have to either say the whole name US Army (as opposed to the MArines or whatever - just an aside on that one, aren’t the Marines part of the Navy? They are over here in the UK) and it would be capitalised, or you could just be implying that he was just in a force that wasn’t the navy/air force etc. and not trying to inform the person which particular ‘army’ he is in.

Don’t think I’ve explained myself very well, but know what I mean!

[Scarlett67]

OK, I give up. Someone had better notify the publishing experts who wrote the style guides that they are wrong, wrong, wrong.

But until new revisions are put out, I will continue to follow the reference books used by my profession. And I will also continue to understand the difference between “being right or wrong” and “following the chosen style guide,” as all of my colleagues do. And also the difference between “understanding about exceptions to the rule” and “blindly applying a rule across the board.” In the “counterexamples” you have given, the exception does not prove the rule.

I offered my professional advice and cited several reference books to back it up in this thread. It’s your choice to ignore that advice and documentation if you wish. No skin off my nose – I figure it’s job security.

[Izzardesque]

No-one said they were necessarily wrong. Other people are allowed to have their own opinions on the matter, and published material is not necessarily definitive. That is what debate is all about, surely?

That said, if the OP was concerned with an official question on an exam or whatever then the stuff you put forth is obviously going to look better than my unfocused ramblings!

Feel better now?

[pulykamell]

Scarlett - I’m a journalist (photo, to be specific.) Different profession, different bible. You mentioned the NY style guide, which writes “the Army” in reference to the US army. So, here’s what AP has to say:

army Capitalize when referring to U.S. forces: the U.S. Army, the Army, Army regulations. Do not use the abbreviation USA.

Usa lowercase for the forces of other namtions: the French army.

This approach has been adopted for consistency, because many foreign nations do not use army as the proper name

I would hardly call the New York Times and the Associated Press the minority in this. Almost all newsrooms follow AP style, with some of their own little modifications (eg. AP says “teen-ager.” Almost everyone else writes “teenager.”) Just by the sheer volume of texts produced every single day by American dailies following AP style, I would seriously rethink your position that the NYT is “in the minority” on this stylistic point. (Although my logic goes with AP, if the context indicates the U.S. Army.)