Grammar Question - which sentence is correct, and why?

[Polycarp]

@TriPolar

That’s not the sentence though. Marley has it right. Singular subject has a verb with an ‘s’ on the end. I don’t know why, or if ‘comes’ is considered plural, but that’s the way it works.

Where do, you see a singular ubject in that sentence? I see a plural one t tne end in a classic inversion.

[Musicat]

As Lenny Bruce once asked, “Did you come? Did you come good?”

[TriPolar]

@pulykamell

I’m not sure what we’re disagreeing about, if anything. Yes, the two sentences have effectively the same meaning, but there is a subtle shift in emphasis depending on the subject and also depending on where in the sentence it is.

That’s what I was referring to back before. I don’t consider the subtle shift unambiguous. So I’d guess I’d say there’s no meaningful difference between the two forms without greater context.

@Polycarp

Where do, you see a singular ubject in that sentence? I see a plural one t tne end in a classic inversion.

You missed a few posts, I already admitted I was wrong in that one. The ‘with’ didn’t trigger any preposition rules for me, it just seemed superfluous. But it does make the subject plural, so ‘come’ is the correct form according to Hoyle.

[foolsguinea]

@Marley23

It’s comes because promotion is singular. I can’t explain this in a more technical way, but that’s the answer. “New promotion” is also kind of redundant.

You, sir, are WRONG.

“promotion” is the object of “with”. “challenges” and “responsibilities” are the subjects, there are two of them, AND they are plural. Plural verb. No choice, no question.

[foolsguinea]

@TriPolar

All right, uncle. Rules is rules. I’m not going to follow them anyway, but the OP’s question is answered.

ETA: I gues the ‘with’ on the beginning screws it up. Would you consider “Your promotion comes with new challenges and responsibilities” to be correct?

Yup. Now “promotion” is subject, and the other two nouns are objects of “with.” The other way, you were trying to have “promotion” be a subject when it was sitting in a prepositional phrase, and trying to have the other two nouns be objects of the preposition when they were off on the other side of the verb. It’s bad coding. Word order is strict like this in Germanic languages.

[Acsenray]

The original sentence is neither badly written nor ambiguous. It’s simply in reverse order, which is perfectly acceptable in English and indeed can reflect a degree of formality or occasion.

“Challenges and responsibilities” = plural subject --> thus the verb is “come”

“With your new promotion” is a prepositional phrase and cannot be the subject.

That’s the end of it.

[tapu]

come
Why? Because I know.

[VinylTurnip]

I concur that the correct form is “come,” and I’m a bit surprised to see this disputed.

[foolsguinea]

@Colophon

“With your new promotion comes new challenges and responsibilities” just sounds horrible and grating, as the “comes” clashes with the plural subject. It’s like hearing “I washes the dishes” or something.

I wouldn’t mind, “I washes the dishes,” so much, personally.

@s0meguy

To illustrate my point, imagine this:

1. A person starts using “there” instead of “their”.
2. The group this person is in starts using “there” instead of “their”.
3. The group creates a dictionary in which they redefine “there” as having the same meaning as “their”.
4. The group creates a new country and creates a governmental institution that officially proclaims that “there” has the same meaning as “their” in that country.

Alternate story:

4. The use of those words in that way expands to an entire existing country. The dictionary is changed to reflect the new meaning of the words.

So, where along the line did it become correct?

If you’re going to say nowhere, then keep in mind that many words of all non-constructed languages were formed/mutated this way. Also, once upon a time, there was no official institution to declare what is the right thing to say and what isn’t. So, what defines which word is the right one in that case? Have all words been “wrong” once? (when they were first made up by someone).

Yore anne inkumPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo:gasp:OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP. & ðiß fraze iz Toe-Tully kreccckket in mine dye-alecccket uv Kweenzinglische!

Seriously, coding is important. Understanding grammar consistently enables understanding the grammar of maths, of programming, and so forth. If I can’t recognize a prepositional phrase in a standard language, how can I understand an equation, or a command in computer code? And yes, language is prescriptive, in order to facilitate communication with other persons.

[Inner_Stickler]

Wow, foolsguinea, you sure spent a lot of time and effort to completely miss his point.

[foolsguinea]

Yep.

I shure did, ayup.

I think most of this “no prescriptivism” is misunderstanding what descriptivism and prescriptivism are for.

We describe to understand. We prescribe to act.

If I just start jub like whatever jub jub jubbing, I may jub what jub means, jub jub don’t you jub? Jub jub!

[Inner_Stickler]

Alright, well you have fun with whatever it is you think you’re excoriating.

[VinylTurnip]

This is a grammar question in GQ. There’s no fun allowed.

[md2000]

@guizot

… One of the more common means of creating discursive cohesion in English writing is to put new information toward the end of a sentence. The reason to invert the subject and verb in this case could very well be in order to achieve that. We don’t really know, because we have only this sentence alone, out of context. Before anyone can say the sentence is “awkward” or somehow inappropriate, they’d have to see the whole span of the discourse in which it occurs.

Subject-verb inversion is not very common in English. In speech it tends to occur in certain stock phrases, such as

Here come the children. Let’s move out of the way.

(Would a native speaker of standard NAE say, “Here comes the children”? Probably not. The verb agrees with the subject, the children.)

Why do we invert the subject and verb in a sentence like this? We want to put children at the end of the sentence, because their impending presence is what the speaker wants to emphasize. (It’s also why the phrase is put in the simple aspect, rather than progressive.) The point of reference (“here”) is self-evident, so in this situation native speakers won’t be likely to say, The children come here, or The children are coming here.

This is an example of what we do in speech that is analogous to what Inner Stickler refers to as “prose ear" for effective writing.

Much better explanation than mine. thank you. The sentence is backward for emphasis. That’s why The Force is having a strong influence on the grammatically weak-minded…

There’s a difference betwen “sounds good” and corect grammar.
“You hold the stake and nod your head when you want me to hit it.”

@VinylTurnip

This is a grammar question in GQ. There’s no fun allowed.

Yes, grammar is not allowed to be fun. I spent too many hours in grades 5 through 7 dissecting sentences, parsing the individual words, the phrases, explaining which was subject, predicate, direct and indirect objects, objects of the preposition, what do the conjunctions join… That was before we got to gerunds. We even mentioned in passing “If I were you…” is correct because this is a rare appearance of the subjunctive. As a result, I spent a lot less effort absorbing Spanish and French lessons, as those languages are far moer dependent on grammar rules. I’m sure the exactness also helped in learning computer languages.

[foolsguinea]

Sorry, I got emotional and stupid for a couple of posts there. If I’m to defend grammar, I should use it.

I think the confusion is that people are treating “comes with” as a compound verb in effect, and so then the noun near the front of the sentence is taken for a subject.

But in English, despite this simplistic idea that at the front comes the subject, there pertains a harder and faster rule about prepositional phrase word order; and even if one were to reïmagine verbs that come with prepositions[sup]1[/sup] as “compound verbs” descriptively (reasonable on its face is which), there is still a sense in which moving the preposition to the beginning of the sentence marks the noun after it as object, not subject.[sup]2[/sup]

Can I imagine a dialect of English that doesn’t look at it that way? Sure! While you’re at it, you might want to inflect nouns so we aren’t using word order to understand them. This is a case of sheer, simplistic, “subject is at the front, right?” sloppiness.

This case had a commutative relationship, so it “didn’t matter.” But what if it were a preposition other than “with”? The vaguer language is, the harder communication becomes. Rules bring clarity.

Yes, sometimes languages decay. English can be described as a degenerate, creolized dialect.

But they also can gain logical precision, which is the opposite of decay. And it is normal for civilization to do this, through prescription.

And that’s the last I want to argue about this in this thread. If you want to have an argument about grammar, go here,I started a new thread.

1. Ooh! That was unintentional! “Verbs that come with prepositions,” has a verb that comes with a preposition! Self-demonstrating!

2. Wow, that’s a dizzying run-on sentence! Yes, I am being a jerk. But it’s grammatical (if stylistically sick-making)! Isn’t it neat what you can do with words, or code, when you understand how the grammar works!

[panache45]

“With your new promotion come new challenges and responsibilities.”

Definitely “come.” The challenges and responsibilities are coming, not the promotion (which may already have come).

[Inner_Stickler]

@foolsguinea

But in English, despite this simplistic idea that at the front comes the subject, there pertains a harder and faster rule about prepositional phrase word order; and even if one were to reïmagine verbs that come with prepositions[sup]1[/sup] as “compound verbs” descriptively (reasonable on its face is which), there is still a sense in which moving the preposition to the beginning of the sentence marks the noun after it as object, not subject.[sup]2[/sup] [/SIZE]

People have, they call them phrasal verbs and it’s fucking stupid. Comes with is not treated by speakers as a verb so it’s a bad idea to classify it as one. I come with, you come with, he/she/it come withs? Ridiculous.

[docia22]

christmas comes but responsibilities and challenges come

[dracoi]

@s0meguy

1. A person starts using “there” instead of “their”.
2. The group this person is in starts using “there” instead of “their”.
3. The group creates a dictionary in which they redefine “there” as having the same meaning as “their”.
4. The group creates a new country and creates a governmental institution that officially proclaims that “there” has the same meaning as “their” in that country.

It becomes official when
5) Experts recognize that a majority of people have adopted the usage and they codify the rule.

However, it also has to be some kind of rule that we can consistently point to. The spelling of there/their is a relatively minor issue. Adjust the spelling, move on. No other part of the language is affected.

The issue of come/comes is not a minor issue. It’s an inverted sentence with a plural subject dictating the verb tense. If someone going to rewrite rules to permit “comes” then they’re affecting many sentences and many verbs. We have to see that shift in other parts of the language, and not just in one particular sentence construction.

I can believe that changes of that magnitude have occurred in language, and probably will occur again, but it is a big deal. The whole purpose of grammar is to make complicated communication possible. Without grammar, you’re not much beyond grunting and pointing.

[tapu]

@VinylTurnip

I concur that the correct form is “come,” and I’m a bit surprised to see this disputed.

I was, too. It’s not like change is occurring or there’s a strict usage rule and a more lax one. It is as simple as subject-verb agreement: come, to match the plural subject which comes after it in the particular structure the sentence is expressed in.

I study a lot about dialect and while there are many exceptions to Standard English agreement, for example in my own dialect, this does not conform to any dialect structure that I know.