Ham and eggs is precisely an example of an established juxtaposition, but I think there’s another category of juxtaposition of things that obviously go together by virtue of what they are - doesn’t matter if it’s an established pairing, as long as it’s an obvious match.
But we’re not talking about whole sentences, we’re talking about the properties we associate with two nouns joined by “and”.
And to be clear - we’re also not talking about any rigid grammatical rule that can be established. We’re simply talking about whether it feels right to treat two things as a single thing, and I think that’s very much a function of whether the juxtaposition of those two things is familiar or unfamiliar.
As I said just before you posted, I don’t think it’s solely as function of familiarity. It can be a function of obvious matching (which I suppose is still familiarity, just with the individual terms)
Sure, but this would be hard to distinguish, because things that are obviously matched probably have been matched, and are therefore familiar.
I agree it’s not clearcut
I think this is one of those (many!) cases where there really isn’t a “right” answer, and “what sounds right” is the best and only real criterion. Of course this is a nightmare for second-language speakers, but it’s often helpful to discuss and think about the “rules” of English grammar as descriptive, rather than prescriptive. That’s a more interesting and important conversation for language learners to have, anyway.
Sure, I don’t think that’s in dispute. I think we’re trying to get a better understanding of why it sounds right to most people with some compounds and not others.
Yeah, good point. That’s also a good conversation to have–teasing out the differences.
Sometimes, it can really depend on what’s going on in the rest of the sentence, so that the same phrase is going to sound right or wrong at different times. And if it’s spoken language…that’s another whole story!
I was about to post that we would not use the singular form with a pairing that is familiar, but juxtaposed as opposites. But I’m not completely sure now. I think I’ve reached the point where I’m thinking about this too much and I can’t tell what sounds right…
The love and hate has been…?
Unless you’re speaking British English, where I understand that “are” would be used in a sentence like this. Teams, companies, bands, and the like are treated as plural in British English but singular in American English. So some of the questions in this thread may have different answers depending on the variant of English under discussion.
“That was nearly seven years ago. The love and encouragement never wavered.”
Problem solved.
Not surprised. I watched an English gangster movie the other day and, I swear, I couldn’t understand half the things they were saying. I guess I speak American, not English. LOL
Ham and eggs is a great way to start the day.
Ham and eggs are my favorite pizza toppings.
One of these is true.
This might sound contrived, but I swear when I read ‘Ham and eggs is a great way to start the day.’, my brain is silently prefacing it with, not the words, but the understood sense ‘A breakfast of…’
A breakfast of ham and eggs is a great way to start the day.
On the pizza topping, if I said Ham and eggs are my favorite pizza toppings, I would mean that I like either of those, not necessarily together - if I substitute ‘is’ in that sentence, I’m talking about [ham and eggs] as a distinct and specific pizza topping option.
For me, the reason “love and encouragement” feel like a single thing is that the actions they describe overlap heavily. The person is very likely being encouraged out of love. And one way in which the love is being shown is by way of encouragement.
If we made a Venn diagram, I would expect that the circle encouragement would be almost entirely, if not completely inside of the circle for love in this particular case. The encouragement is part of the love, and thus they together can function as a unit.
I think that last clause–that they function together as a unit–is about the only real commonality you can create for all such constructions. Something that would ordinarily be plural is treated as singular when the idea is to convey that the plural construction functions as a unit. Similarly, treating an ordinarily singular construction as plural suggests that individual parts are functioning independently.
I don’t think you can get more specific and cover all cases.
OTOH, I have no concept of “love and encouragement” being a stock phrase in English like “ham and eggs” or “shoes and socks” are.
As @BigT says the ideas go together sorta, but that’s real weak IMO. “Love and same last name” or “love and same address” go together about as naturally IMO.
“That was nearly seven years ago. The (love and encouragement) has never wavered."
Another solution.
That’s not quite what I’m saying, though. It’s not that they go together, but that they overlap in this context. And that, because they overlap, that is why they are being used as a single concept.
I don’t think “love and encouragement” is a fixed phrase, either. I don’t think the two words inherently go together. I think it’s the fact that they can overlap that allows for them to be used as a single unit and not sound wrong.
As for your examples, I would consider “love and same last name” or “love and same address” to be so different in type that you shouldn’t use them as a compound subject at all. There would be no question of whether you should use “have” or “has,” because it wouldn’t make sense for them to both be “doing” the same thing.
Other examples I can think of would be stuff like “love and happiness,” “Gentleness and encouragement,” “love and devotion,” “kindness and generosity,” “loveliness and temperance” and so on. None are things that inherently go together, but all are of the same type and could function as describing a single concept that encompasses both words.
Ah, now I see what you meant. And yes, I think you’re onto something with that line of thinking.
On reflection, I tend to thing that both “overlapping” and “familiarity” contribute to the probability of a compound being treated as singular.
“Love and hate” is familiar but non-overlapping.
“Love and encouragement” is overlapping but not particularly familiar.
“Love and support” is both overlapping and familiar.
I would say that “love and support” is probably the most likely of the three compounds to be treated as singular.
And as an interesting aside, note that in describing these examples of compounds, the “ham and eggs” process led me to treat them all as singular (“is” not “are”) when describing them above.