A Vietnamese student of English asked about, “That was nearly seven years ago. The love and encouragement has never wavered.” wondering if “has” should be “have”. I see his point that “love and encouragement” are two things and so should be followed by “have”, but it still seems off to me. Maybe because “love and encouragement” appears to be a single concept in this context? What does youse all thinks?
…
The rule is that two or more singular nouns or pronouns joined by “and” take a plural verb, so it should be “have.” Two or more singular nouns or pronouns joined by “or” or “nor” take a singular verb. If the compound subject contains a singular and a plural noun or pronoun joined by “or” or “nor”, the verb agrees with the part of the subject nearer the verb.
This is a not a matter of opinion, but of grammar. Even if it sounds “off” to you, “have” is still correct.
I’m interested in any ideas why “have” might sound wrong despite being correct. Maybe the “that” in the first sentence is exerting some hoodoo suggesting we need a singular verb?
This seems similar to a well-crafted SAT test question: the error’s there, but something is obscuring it. Could it just be slightly unidiomatic word choices? (Absent context, the sentences do seem a bit weird — somehow.)
What about things that are kind of compound items, for lack of a better term?
“That mortar and pestle sure has a lot of cracks.”
I’m sure Colibri and snoe are correct. I’m usually a stickler for rules, but this one is bugging me and I don’t know why, and that’s bugging me.
whc.03grady, I appreciate your support, but “have” actually sounds better to me in your example. Go figure, right?
How about, “Ham and eggs is my favorite dish.” Would you insist on strictly following the rule there? That is, would you say, “Ham and eggs are my favorite dishes?”
That’s actually an exception. From here.
I think “mortar and pestle” could potentially go either way, depending on how much the items are thought of as a unit.
I think that’s reasonably clear. Ham and eggs is a single dish, that single dish is your favourite. If you were to say “Ham and eggs are my favourite dish/es”, it either sounds wrong or implies that you are talking about a meal of ham and another meal of eggs.
That could be held to apply to the OP’s example. From what’s revealed of the context “love and encouragement” could obviously be thought of as a singular compound.
He mentions that in the OP, and that may be why the plural sounds wrong. But I don’t think the two words are so automatically associated to justify that. YMMV
Agree - ‘love and encouragement’ is on the cusp of being a compound term in a way that, say ‘love and financial support’ or ‘love and excellent home baking’ might not be.
If you change the ‘The’ to ‘His’ for example, which sounds correct?
His love and encouragement has never wavered.
His love and encouragement have never wavered.
To me ‘have’ clearly sounds right here, more so than in the original example.
I’m with your second quote. “Love and encouragement” is enough of a unit to my ears that “has” sounds correct; but it’s not enough of one that “have” sounds incorrect. Were I writing for someone who’s known to be a stickler, or if I were tutoring an ELL student, I’d write/teach “have”. If I were reading, I’d accept either.
An objective test would be to survey people in the manner of Family Feud to ask them what would commonly complete “love and…”. I’m skeptical that “love and encouragement” would be on the board, I think there’s a much better case that “love and support” might be a common enough expression to feel natural when treated as a compound singular. Here’s the ngram frequency of both:
The “mortar and pestle” is really a single multi part device, so “has” is correct in that case. It’s akin to collective nouns such as “team”. Although a football team consists of fifty or more players, we still say that, “The team is playing very well.”
To my ear, “has” and “have” both sound right in that context, but have subtly different connotations.
“The love and encouragement has never wavered” carries (to my ear) the connotation of a single, continuous and ongoing condition which encompasses love and encouragement.
“The love and encouragement have never wavered” carries (to my ear) a connotation a series of discrete acts and expressions of love and encouragement.
Yes, whether love and encouragement must be thought of as one entity is exactly the question here. Applying grammar rules without considering that is failing the OP.
The problem is that English has no rules for determining when a pair of nouns form a unity. That they sometimes do is obvious and examples have already be given. The squishy middle is trickier because people keep inventing one-off expressions like “love and encouragement” that can’t be compared to a pile of known duads.
In most cases, the best solution is to defer to the author. If the author thought of “love and encouragement” as so much of a singularity as to use the singular “has,” then we need to honor that. Author’s intent should always trump outside pedantry.
Is that the definition of a compound term, that it has to be established? I would have thought it was more a case of intent and meaning.
FWIW, my instinct is “has”, meaning i perceive it as a compound like “ham 'n egss”. But I certainly accept “have”. Grammar is not always clear cut.
In the case of “ham and eggs”, it’s obviously for a different reason, it’s a single dish. But in the case of “love and XXX” where it is really two things, yes I think it is just a question of whether it’s an established common phrase. Thinking of two things as a single thing is a result of familiar juxtaposition, we’re so accustomed to seeing them together that we start to think of them as if they are one thing. And, of course, there’s no bright line.
I agree with Mangetout that “established” can’t be a criterion. Most sentences longer than platitudes are new and original, likely never said or written in that form in the history of the language. We’re remarkably good at smoothly and unconsciously fitting grammar to the unprecedented, nevertheless. (One reason why some linguists believe grammar is innate, though I’m not going to splash in that pond.)
Even so, grammar contains exceptions. When to use singular and plural verbs is perhaps the peak cause of confusion. If cases can be made either way by educated speakers, then no “right” answer is possible. I’ve already said that in such cases, defer to the author. If you disagree, then when you write the sentence do the opposite. Either way, acknowledge that doing so is a matter of opinion and preference, not right or wrong.