Grammar Question - which sentence is correct, and why?

[tapu]

THIS IS AN EXPANSION OF THE ABOVE POST. I MISSED THE REVISION WINDOW.

@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, 3rd person plural form, to match the 3rd person plural subject that 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 (He come in here one day recent.), the alternative, with comes, does not conform to any dialect variant that I know. And I think that the necessity of the plural verb there is reinforced by the formality of the sentence.

Aside:
Isn’t it interesting how regular nouns are marked plural with -s, but for regular verbs the plural marker is null?

[foolsguinea]

Germanic languages have a thing for reusing suffixes for different purposes in different places. English has* -s*, in standard German it’s -en. :shudder:

[Sailboat]

@Wheelz

Fair points, and I’ll back down from my “bullshit” remark, which was rude, but I still feel that s0meguy’s post illustrates the lazy way out.

Of course language evolves. Grammar rules are not carved in stone and carried from a mountaintop. And I’ve always maintained that it’s OK to break a rule --* if *you know what the rule is and why you’re breaking it.

That’s not the same thing as what I consider the willful ignorance of the “nothing is correct, therefore everything is correct” approach.

Yeah, language evolves by general consensus. Bob can’t change the language on his own one Thursday because he can’t be bothered.

[pulykamell]

s0meguy - I’m not going to argue about descriptivism vs. prescriptivism here. I’m usually on the prescriptivist side of the debate, as my posting history shows. If you look at my initial reply to this thread, you’ll note that I carefully word it as ‘I concur that “come” is what would be traditionally identified as the grammatically correct answer.’

Context is key. I gather that the OP is asking about what is considered “correct” in a formal register. There is absolutely no question that “come” is correct from a strict, prescriptivist standpoint. This is the verb I expect to see eagle-eyed copy editors to use if they came across the sentence. Like I said, there is a tendency for some speakers to want to agree with the noun closest the verb (agreement by proximity.) I’m not saying it’s wrong from a descriptivist standpoint (I’m surprised that some posters have not come across such constructions), necessarily. But, formally, “come” is going to be the least objectionable.

[Superhal]

Couple things:

1. Actually, there’s a more accurate rule about subject verb agreement for native speakers. It’s not based on whether the subject is plural or singular, but by the presence of the “s” sound around the verb. If the word immediately preceding the verb contains an S sound, then native speakers will more likely choose a verb without an S sound, which is why subject-verb agreement tends to remain one of the most difficult grammar rules for native speakers to “correct.” Compare:
   The groups of doctors is/are here.
   The group of doctors is/are here.

In much the same way that the old “a before consonants and an before verbs” was categorically incorrect until the past 20 years or so yet still pushed in grammar books, aural rules like this one are slowly catching on, but subject-verb agreement still faces a lot of prejudice.

2. It is not true inversion. True inversion is where the subject is actually in the object place:
   Do they have hats?
   There are hats in the window.
   vs
   There is a hat in the window.

The steak and potatoes example is good to identify which is the subject and which is the object:
When I order a steak, I get potatoes included? If yes, then “The steak comes with potatoes.”
If I order potatoes, is a steak included? No. “The potatoes come with steak” is clearly factually incorrect, but grammatically correct. Therefore, we know that the subject (your new promotion) is in the correct place and should be controlling the form of the verb. That the verb “comes” does not have direction allows the flipping of the subject and object to still make sense,
e.g. He kisses her, She kisses him, They kiss.
vs
He punches the bag, The bag punches him.

In the OP, it’s clear that the responsibilities comes after the promotion, you don’t do the new duties before the promotion.

3. “Your new promotion” is not the object of the preposition “with”, which would be another condition for subject-verb inversion. Consider:
   He comes with me.
   vs
   With me, he comes.
   “Me” is clearly the object of the preposition “With,” even though “I come with him” is also correct.

True inversion means the object pushes the subject after the verb. If this happened with the above example, it wouldn’t work:
With I/me comes him/he.

It’s clearer to understand if we use “after” instead of “with”:
In the alphabet, B’s come after every A.
After A come B’s. (correct inversion, B is still the subject of the sentence and controls the s-v agreement.)
X After B’s comes A. (incorrect inversion, A is not the subject and “After” clearly cannot have “B’s” as the object.)

4. The “with” is an example of prepositional fronting. In some cases, it is used to avoid having a sentence end with a preposition, e.g.

“That is the car which I came in.”
vs
“That is the car in which I came.”

However, the OP’s is an older form that is used to make sentences sound more pithy, elegant and/or formal that is rarely used in modern English today, but is usually taught just so modern users can understand older works or take grammar tests. I wouldn’t be surprised if the OP’s sentence was written before 1980, but the “With great power comes great responsibility” definitely was.

5. Kind of a nitpick here, but “promotion” doesn’t decide whether it is comes or come, it’s the entire noun phrase, “Your new promotion.” Compare: “Your first of hopefully many new promotions…”

In summary: it must be “comes” because “your new promotion” is singular and it is the subject of the sentence.

[Clothahump]

@NBCGLX

With your new promotion comes new challenges and responsibilities.

Or,

With your new promotion come new challenges and responsibilities.

The issue is comes vs. come, and I’m not sure which is correct, nor why. I’m leaning toward the use of “come” because challenges and responsibilities are plural. Which one is correct and why? Thanks!!

It’s the second one. If you rewrite the sentence so that the prepositional phrase comes last, you’ll see that the subjects are plural:

New challenges and responsibilities come with your new promotion.

[Chessic_Sense]

@aldiboronti

Another vote for come. I can’t see any case for the **plural **form of the verb.

@Svejk_1

the **declined **verb

@Superhal

In much the same way that the old “a before consonants and an before verbs”

Are you all high, or are you all just tired?

[Philster]

“With your new promotion” exists as a prepositonal phrase, and this boxes the word promotion OUT as a subject. It can’t have an effect on the verb as such.

It’s tied up in a phrase. That’s the reality. Sorry, kids, who are lobbying poorly for ‘comes’.

.

[svd678]

Inner Stickler (#33) you can’t mean you think “came” and “went” are for people and “come” and “gone” are for things - you meant that is the absurd belief of someone else?! “Came” is the past tense of “come,” which is frequently used wrongly; “went” is simple past of “go,” and “gone” is used in perfect tenses. But many now don’t know how to use perfects. And the OP question illustrates that compound subjects confuse many people.

[Mornac]

@LH75

Sister Mary Claver taught me to reverse the sentence like this for grammar checking. She said that the improper grammar sounds incorrect when you do this.

–I got it from Sister Mary Joanetta. I wish she were still around to come in here and set everyone straight.

[Indistinguishable]

@pulykamell

s0meguy - I’m not going to argue about descriptivism vs. prescriptivism here. I’m usually on the prescriptivist side of the debate, as my posting history shows.

You are? My sense of things was different, or perhaps more nuanced (cf. the self-identification here, for example).

[Superhal]

@Philster

“With your new promotion” exists as a prepositonal phrase, and this boxes the word promotion OUT as a subject. It can’t have an effect on the verb as such.

It’s tied up in a phrase. That’s the reality. Sorry, kids, who are lobbying poorly for ‘comes’.

.

By your logic, in the sentence “This is the bug on which I stepped,” “which I stepped” is the object of the preposition “on?”

@Mornac

–I got it from Sister Mary Joanetta. I wish she were still around to come in here and set everyone straight.

By this logic, “Babies eat apples” and “Apples eat babies” are both correct? That the flipped version also makes sense is chance, not rule.

[jackdavinci]

nm

[jackdavinci]

With an apple comes worms and wax.

With apples come worms and wax.

Promotion is singular so comes.

Reversing the order obviously isn’t a reliable determiner.

[Colophon]

@jackdavinci

With an apple comes worms and wax.

With apples come worms and wax.

Promotion is singular so comes.

Reversing the order obviously isn’t a reliable determiner.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove here, but your first sentence above is not grammatical. The subject of the verb is “worms and wax”, not “an apple”.

[Philster]

@Superhal

By your logic, in the sentence “This is the bug on which I stepped,” “which I stepped” is the object of the preposition “on?”

By this logic, “Babies eat apples” and “Apples eat babies” are both correct? That the flipped version also makes sense is chance, not rule.

Are you serious? Your last example is two different sentences and would be diagrammed as two different sentences.

Fact is, the opening poster posted an example. That’s how the sentence exists. If you choose to switch it around, it changes what is what. So, yeah… blue cars look blue when they are painted blue, but you got me cornered, because they look red when painted red. That proves they aren’t really blue.

You diagram what you have. In the OP, you have a plural subject, because that’s what it is, and what it might be is irrelevant.

[pulykamell]

@Indistinguishable

You are? My sense of things was different, or perhaps more nuanced (cf. the self-identification here, for example).

:smack:

I’m usually on the descriptivist side of the debate. Thanks for catching that. I don’t know why “presecriptivist” came out in that sentence.

[jtur88]

As I told my students when teaching English, “You are the one using the language, so use it to say what you want to say”.

For example:

“Shock and awe was the tactic Bush hoped would quickly win Iraq.” Or
“Shock and awe were the tactics Bush hoped would quickly win Iraq.”

The singular form works here, because the two elements of shock and awe were essential in combination to form a unified tactic.

The long and short of it is (not are) that your statement should reflect the way you, as the speaker, want your collective nouns to be understood.

[Inner_Stickler]

@Superhal

By this logic, “Babies eat apples” and “Apples eat babies” are both correct? That the flipped version also makes sense is chance, not rule.

Those aren’t inverted sentences, though, so flipping them doesn’t do much. You’ve changed the subject and the object of the verb. Imagine the following sentences: “With their fingers eat babies” and “Babies eat with their fingers” Do you see how with either arrangement the subject is still babies?

[pulykamell]

@pulykamell

“presecriptivist”

And, of course, yet again. “Prescriptivist.” Ugh. Gotta stop posting for awhile.