Strolling through the park this evening, I saw the following sign: “Dogs running at large is prohibited”.
-
Is this grammatically correct? Shouldn’t it be: “Dogs running at large are prohibited”?
-
How would one diagram this sentence?
Sure sounds like “are” is right and “is” is wrong… is “Dogs running at large” some kind of idiom or vernacular specific to your area?
While “running at large” is a participial phrase modifying “Dogs” it would not make the verb “is”. So your deduction about it being “are” is correct.
Diagraming is going to be a challenge with the resources we have here but let me say that on the main line would be:
Dogs | are prohibited
coming off “Dogs” (below the line) on one of these ___you would have following the curve of the line the word, “runnning”. Below the bottom portion of “running” you would have another diagonal line with the word “at” on it. Going horizontally from that (as the object of the preposition “at”) on a horizontal continuation of the diagonal you would have the word, “large”.
Roughly a breakdown is:
Dogs -------subject
running-----participle
at----------preposition modifying the participle
large-------object of the preposition
are prohibited–passive voice present tense verb
I think there is more than one way to parse the sentence. I’m a Brit, by the way, and there may be UK/US differences in prevailing grammatical conventions.
I would certainly say that TV Time has provided one correct way to prase the sentence which suggests the verb should be ‘are’, to agree in number with the plural noun ‘dogs’.
A legitimate alternative would be to regard ‘Dogs running at large’ as a single noun group or noun phrase, which names or identifies a prohibited act. This single noun phrase takes the singular verb ‘is’, and is modified by the adjective ‘prohibited’.
In other words, the sentence contains the same elements as a sentence such as ‘Parking is prohibited’. In place of the gerund (sometimes called a “verbal noun”) ‘parking’, we have the noun phrase ‘dogs running at large’.
So, depending how you want to slice and dice the raw material, the verb should be plural (‘are’) to agree with the plural noun ‘dogs’, or singular (‘is’) to agree with the single act which is described as prohibited.
Ian - with degree-level qualifications in English language grammatical analysis, linguistics and philology.
The orignial sign is correct. Dogs are not prohibited, they just can’t run at large. The act of running at large is what is prohibited, so the sign is right. It would be much simpler, however, to have the sign read “All dogs must remain on leashes.”
CrazyCatLady, I definitely disagree. A participial phrase is just like a prepositional phrase. The subject is still the subject independent of the phrase. Would you make the verb singular if the phrase read “without a leash”? No, of course you would not. Nor should you with the phrase “running at large”. It does not change the original subject at all.
Dogs are indeed the things being prohibited in the park and the clarify phrase of “running at large” does not change the need for a plural verb.
I think any attempt to diagram the sentence any other way ends in a dead end and indicates that “are” has to be the verb.
The only way I can see that being right is if there’s an apostrophe after dogs: Dogs’ running at large is prohibited, in other words, the running at large by dogs is prohibited. It wouldn’t be wrong, but it does sound tortured.
Let’s try a small change:
“Dogs running is prohibited.” Okay.
“Dogs running are prohibited.” Not so good.
Seems like a gerund phrase to me.