# Proper grammar that looks wrong
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-grammar-that-looks-wrong/667755
**Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
**Created:** [September 1, 2013, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-grammar-that-looks-wrong/667755 "2013-09-01T20:55:29Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@standingwave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/standingwave)
#### Post date: [September 1, 2013, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-grammar-that-looks-wrong/667755/1 "2013-09-01T20:55:29Z")
From Roger Ebert’s (RIP) review of Good Will Hunting:[Who claims credit? _ **None** _ of the students _ **does.** _](http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/good-will-hunting-1997)
Correct grammar (I think). Singular agreement. None _is_; not none _are_. None used here is singular. But it still looks wrong (to me anyway).
Other examples?
---
### Author:  [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)
#### Post date: [September 1, 2013, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-grammar-that-looks-wrong/667755/2 "2013-09-01T20:59:48Z")
“The data support the conclusion.” Although I think data as a singular noun is just about over the finish line of acceptability.
---
### Author:  [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)
#### Post date: [September 1, 2013, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-grammar-that-looks-wrong/667755/3 "2013-09-01T21:04:52Z")
They didn’t use to do that. – Since “used” (in that sense) is almost always in the past tense, and never in the present tense, the infinitive form “use” feels very strange, but is correct.
---
### Author:  [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)
#### Post date: [September 1, 2013, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-grammar-that-looks-wrong/667755/4 "2013-09-01T21:05:39Z")
I’m not afraid to say “datum” out loud.
---
### Author:  [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)
#### Post date: [September 1, 2013, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-grammar-that-looks-wrong/667755/5 "2013-09-01T21:15:51Z")
> [@aNewLeaf](#):
>
> I’m not afraid to say “datum” out loud.
As in, “I’d still respect someone with bad grammar, but I’d never datum”?
(Me, too, and I watch phenomena/phenomenon very carefully as well.)
---
### Author:  [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)
#### Post date: [September 1, 2013, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-grammar-that-looks-wrong/667755/6 "2013-09-01T21:25:12Z")
> [@standingwave](#):
>
> From Roger Ebert’s (RIP) review of Good Will Hunting:[Who claims credit? _ **None** _ of the students _ **does.** _](http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/good-will-hunting-1997)
> Correct grammar (I think). Singular agreement. None _is_; not none _are_. None used here is singular. But it still looks wrong (to me anyway).
>
> Other examples?
Incorrect, to my ear. “None of the students _does_” just doesn’t sound right.
“None of them does.” Sounds wrong. But “Who claims credit? None of them _do_” sounds right to me.
Example:
> [@](#):
>
> Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
> Why, if it prosper, \*\*\*none dare \*\*\*call it treason.
Emphasis mine. The “none” there is plural, so “none dare.” Not “none dares.”
---
### Author:  [@Canadjun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Canadjun)
#### Post date: [September 1, 2013, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-grammar-that-looks-wrong/667755/7 "2013-09-01T21:55:31Z")
If I **were** to throw my computer out the window, it would make a mess.
“Were” is correct (subjunctive mood).
---
### Author:  [@standingwave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/standingwave)
#### Post date: [September 1, 2013, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-grammar-that-looks-wrong/667755/8 "2013-09-01T22:02:23Z")
> [@Saintly\_Loser](#):
>
> Incorrect, to my ear. “None of the students _does_” just doesn’t sound right.
>
> “None of them does.” Sounds wrong. But “Who claims credit? None of them _do_” sounds right to me.
I guess there’s some ambiguity. Is none as Ebert wrote it, _not one_ (singular) or none of _them_ (plural). I’m an engineer, unprepared to handle these finer points of grammar.
---
### Author:  [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)
#### Post date: [September 1, 2013, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-grammar-that-looks-wrong/667755/9 "2013-09-01T22:21:57Z")
> [@standingwave](#):
>
> I guess there’s some ambiguity. Is none as Ebert wrote it, _not one_ (singular) or none of _them_ (plural). I’m an engineer, unprepared to handle these finer points of grammar.
There’s always ambiguity in language.
There’s local usage, too. Consider:
British (I think): Microsoft \*are \*releasing a security update. . .
US: Microsoft _is_ releasing a security update. . .
Both correct, locally speaking. Microsoft is one company (singular). But it is also a whole bunch of people (plural).
---
### Author:  [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)
#### Post date: [September 1, 2013, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-grammar-that-looks-wrong/667755/10 "2013-09-01T23:35:31Z")
> [@standingwave (quoting Ebert)](#):
>
> Who claims credit? _ **None** _ of the students _ **does.** _
Note the prepositional phrase _of the students_ followed by the verb. The subject of the verb is _None_ so technically, perhaps, it should agree with that. But the verb is closest to the noun _students_ so it only _sounds_ right if the verb agrees with that.
Or, wait a minute . . . Exactly who or what is performing the verb in this sentence? (Uh… Who is doing the doing there?) It’s the _students_ who are claiming (or not claiming, in this case) the credit. So maybe the verb should really agree with that?
We went over and over this in my English 1A class. We finally agreed that the verb should agree with the object of the preposition, since it’s the object of the preposition that is actually performing the action. We even found one style manual that agreed with that. The suggested rule was that if the actual subject word is just a quantifier, then that subject isn’t really doing the action. It’s the object of the preposition that’s actually doing the action. It’s an idiomatic quirk of English grammar.
Ebert’s example may be a bit confusing because the quantifier is “None”, meaning the students aren’t doing the mentioned action.
A more typical (but grammatically similar, I think) example would be:
A ton of bricks (is/are?) in the pick-up truck.
Who or what, exactly, is/are in the truck? Is there a _ton_ in the truck? Or are there _bricks_ in the truck?
Another commonly-seen case:
A number of [whatever] (is/are?) [whatever].
As in: A number of consultants (agree/agrees?) with the client.
Sticklers tend to insist that the verb should be singular, to agree with “A ton” or “A number”. But that just sounds wrong, and we found at least one style manual that ageed that the verb should agree with the object of the preposition in constructions like that.
---
### Author:  [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)
#### Post date: [September 2, 2013, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-grammar-that-looks-wrong/667755/11 "2013-09-02T00:06:13Z")
> [@Saintly\_Loser](#):
>
> Example: None dare call it treason
>
> The “none” there is plural, so “none dare.” Not “none dares.”
Wrong! “Dare”, along with “need” is an optional modal. “He dare call it treason” is correct, although it certainly sounds odd. But modals govern the infinitive and “call” is correct. “He dares to call it treason” is also correct because the “to” is the sign that you are using “dare” as an ordinary verb, not a modal.
Here is my favorite grammatical sentence that many people find difficult to parse:
The horse raced past the barn fell.
Compare: The horse ridden past the barn fell. It is just that “raced” looks like the preterite, but “ridden” can only be a participle and, interpreted that, the sentence is clear.
---
### Author:  [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)
#### Post date: [September 2, 2013, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-grammar-that-looks-wrong/667755/12 "2013-09-02T07:36:54Z")
Here’s another example of hard-to-parse sentences that I found in a linguistics textbook.
The mouse died.
The mouse the cat ate died.
The mouse the cat the dog chased ate died.
The second sentence comes from the first by simply putting “the mouse the cat ate” in place of simply “the mouse”; and the third sentence comes from the second by putting “the cat the dog chased” in place of simply “the cat”.
So the third sentence is created by the same production rule as the second, and is technically just as grammatical. But most observers seem to agree that the first and second sentences are straightforward, yet the third is incomprehensible.
---
### Author:  [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)
#### Post date: [September 2, 2013, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-grammar-that-looks-wrong/667755/13 "2013-09-02T08:24:28Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#):
>
> Wrong! “Dare”, along with “need” is an optional modal. “He dare call it treason” is correct, although it certainly sounds odd. But modals govern the infinitive and “call” is correct. “He dares to call it treason” is also correct because the “to” is the sign that you are using “dare” as an ordinary verb, not a modal.
>
> Here is my favorite grammatical sentence that many people find difficult to parse:
>
> The horse raced past the barn fell.
Which could also be parsed in two other ways:
The barn was fell (in the sense of dire or uncanny) and the horse raced past it - warned, no doubt, by some animal instinct.
The fell had a barn on it (and was called the “barn fell” to distinguish it from other barnless fells) and the horse raced past it.
---
### Author:  [@runningdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/runningdude)
#### Post date: [September 2, 2013, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-grammar-that-looks-wrong/667755/14 "2013-09-02T16:39:46Z")
> [@standingwave](#):
>
> From Roger Ebert’s (RIP) review of Good Will Hunting:[Who claims credit? _ **None** _ of the students _ **does.** _](http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/good-will-hunting-1997)
> Correct grammar (I think). Singular agreement. None _is_; not none _are_. None used here is singular. But it still looks wrong (to me anyway).
>
> Other examples?
None could be plural; “All are”, “None are” versus “Everyone is”, “No one is”.
> [@Giles](#):
>
> They didn’t use to do that. – Since “used” (in that sense) is almost always in the past tense, and never in the present tense, the infinitive form “use” feels very strange, but is correct.
Its only strange to look at, because “use” blends into “to” - “Ustoo”, which sounds identical to “used to”.
---
### Author:  [@runningdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/runningdude)
#### Post date: [September 2, 2013, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-grammar-that-looks-wrong/667755/15 "2013-09-02T16:41:49Z")
nm
---
### Author:  [@TheChileanBlob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheChileanBlob)
#### Post date: [September 2, 2013, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-grammar-that-looks-wrong/667755/16 "2013-09-02T17:34:44Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#):
>
> “The data support the conclusion.” Although I think data as a singular noun is just about over the finish line of acceptability.
I always think of “data” as a collective noun, not as a bunch of individual datums.
---
### Author:  [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)
#### Post date: [September 2, 2013, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-grammar-that-looks-wrong/667755/17 "2013-09-02T17:55:47Z")
> [@Senegoid](#):
>
> Here’s another example of hard-to-parse sentences that I found in a linguistics textbook.
>
> The mouse died.
>
> The mouse the cat ate died.
>
> The mouse the cat the dog chased ate died.
>
> The second sentence comes from the first by simply putting “the mouse the cat ate” in place of simply “the mouse”; and the third sentence comes from the second by putting “the cat the dog chased” in place of simply “the cat”.
>
> So the third sentence is created by the same production rule as the second, and is technically just as grammatical. But most observers seem to agree that the first and second sentences are straightforward, yet the third is incomprehensible.
There’s a TV show called _How It’s Made_. If they were to dedicate an episode to the workings of their own production, it would be called _How How It’s Made Is Made_. If they released that on DVD, with a bonus feature about the production of the DVD, that feature would be called _How How How It’s Made Is Made Is Made_.
ETA: If I’d written this knowing the above had really taken place, my post could be titled _How How How How It’s Made Is Made Is Made Was Made_
---
### Author:  [@Nancarrow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nancarrow)
#### Post date: [September 2, 2013, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-grammar-that-looks-wrong/667755/18 "2013-09-02T18:14:40Z")
Dibs on explaining the origin of the last post.
---
### Author:  [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)
#### Post date: [September 2, 2013, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-grammar-that-looks-wrong/667755/19 "2013-09-02T19:46:09Z")
> [@Mangetout](#):
>
> There’s a TV show called _How It’s Made_. If they were to dedicate an episode to the workings of their own production, it would be called _How How It’s Made Is Made_. If they released that on DVD, with a bonus feature about the production of the DVD, that feature would be called _How How How It’s Made Is Made Is Made_.
True story: In English 1A, we read an essay titled _The Great Dinosaur Ripoff_ by Steven Jay Gould. Some months later, I came across an op-ed piece by Gould in a newspaper, in which he basically repeated much of that earlier essay, but without mentioning that he was, in essence, plagiarizing his own earlier essay.
I wrote a note to my English teacher about it, which I titled _The Great Great Dinosaur Ripoff Ripoff._
---
### Author:  [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)
#### Post date: [September 2, 2013, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-grammar-that-looks-wrong/667755/20 "2013-09-02T21:22:54Z")
> [@Nancarrow](#):
>
> Dibs on explaining the origin of the last post.
Dunno. I first thought of it myself a couple of years ago when I made [this](http://sdrv.ms/1aeI5gY)DVD cover mockup, but I don’t expect I was the first - it’s kinda obvious.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proper-grammar-that-looks-wrong/667755.md?page=2)