On Richard Jensen's Examples....as an Example of the Current General Discussion.

Tue Nov 3 05:16:29 CST 1998

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_01BE06E9.1D20FB80
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

(1) In  the 'correction' below, Richard Jensen introduces other problems.
"Committee" is used in different ways in the two sentences (which is why
the second sounds so clumsy).  In the first, it is the subject of the
sentence; in the second it is the object of a (partially missing)
prepositional phrase which modifies a subject which is also missing
[following the example given in his explanatory paragraph].

Why would anyone drop the subject and part of the modifying prepositional
phrase?  So, my initial reading of the second sentence was maintaining the
word "committee" as the subject (as in the first sentence) and I assumed it
was grammatically incorrect as the missing phrase was "made up of"  and
thus "committee" would still require a singular verb in the sentence "The
committee is made up of representatives...".  [Dropping this weaker
modifier is much less clumsy than the rather forced construction of
dropping the subject and part of its modifier.]  In sum, in your example,
your sentence has no subject....just the object of a prepositional phrase
as surrogate for the subject it modifies. Why?

(2)  I said what is above because I grew up learning U.S. English.  The
British do use the plural verb form with collective nouns.  [See The
Little, Brown Handbook, Instructor's Annotated Edition, Sixth Edition, p.
231.  Oh yes, and note that Little and Brown are not descriptive
modifiers.]

(3)  A lot of confusion in this whole discussion rests in the use of
'collective nouns' in different ways.  One of the most reputable sources
[Fowler's Modern English Usage] distinguishes seven [7] types of collective
nouns and in a rather laconic explanation outlines the rules of agreement.

(4) Yet more misstatement has sprung from the confusion of the use of
collective nouns and that of another abstraction; 'count nouns'.  I won't
begin to touch that here!  [We have something of a Gilbert Ryle 'category
level' problem at this point.]

(5)  Please return to beating up on categories for taxa.  Hey, I'm an
economist who started following this list about 8 months ago as I have to
work with taxa as inputs into some model building in which I'm engaged.
Thus, for me; you're the experts on which I rely for 'data'.  I didn't
expect agreement among you folks but I at least could follow your
disagreements easier when they were in the realm of the biological and not
the grammatical.  You'll never solve the problems of the lack of congruence
of Romantic and Hellenic grammar and of the bastard stepchild, English,
being an Indo-Teutonic language with a forced Romantic grammar system
imposed upon it.  [Where's Chomsky when we really need him?]

....and I have sat on my hands to keep from writing on the fact that other
fields (physics, economics, etc.) don't have a problem in renaming entities
when the paradigm changes.  Much of what I've seen in the recent taxa
discussion dealt with different paradigm [and please don't jump on my using
the p-word as both singular and plural] into which you are now forcing a
discussion of grammar to try to solve your differences.  Grammar should be
a tool of explanation but will never solve the problems of differences in
paradigm...or even category level (again, in the Ryle sense).

I'll now return again to just watching and hope to learn something about
taxonomic structures.                                                                   Jim Bass
----------
From: Richard Jensen <rjensen at SAINTMARYS.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM <TAXACOM at CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>
Subject: Re: plural collective nouns
Date: Monday, November 02, 1998 3:04 PM

In my last communication on this mater, I made a rather poor choice for my
example
by using an English verb construction ("have spoken") that is appropriate
for
either a singular or plural subject e.g., "I have spoken" or "We have
spoken").
Perhaps a better example would be

    "The committee is meeting in room 203 at noon."
    "The committee are representatives of four separate departments."

While the latter may not sound as pleasing as saying "The members of the
committee
are...," it is grammatically correct ("The members of" is implicit in the
construction).  The point is that when writing in English, a collective
noun (and I
think in standard usage plant family names are collective nouns) may have a
singular or plural verb depending upon the context.

--
Richard J. Jensen              TEL: 219-284-4674
Department of Biology      FAX: 219-284-4716
Saint Mary's College         E-mail: rjensen at saintmarys.edu
Notre Dame, IN  46556     http://www.saintmarys.edu/~rjensen
------=_NextPart_000_01BE06E9.1D20FB80
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head></head><BODY bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><p><font size=3D2 =
color=3D"#000080" face=3D"Arial">(1) In  the 'correction' below, =
Richard Jensen introduces other problems.  "Committee" is =
used in different ways in the two sentences (which is why the second =
sounds so clumsy).  In the first, it is the subject of the =
sentence; in the second it is the object of a (partially missing) =
prepositional phrase which modifies a subject which is also missing =
[following the example given in his explanatory paragraph]. =
 <br><br>Why would anyone drop the subject and part of the =
modifying prepositional phrase?  So, my initial reading of the =
second sentence was maintaining the word "committee" as the =
subject (as in the first sentence) and I assumed it was grammatically =
incorrect as the missing phrase was "made up of"  and =
thus "committee" would still require a singular verb in the =
sentence "The committee is made up of representatives...". =
 [Dropping this weaker modifier is much less clumsy than the rather =
forced construction of dropping the subject and part of its modifier.] =
 In sum, in your example, your sentence has no subject....just the =
object of a prepositional phrase as surrogate for the subject it =
modifies. Why?<br><br>(2)  I said what is above because I grew up =
learning U.S. English.  The British do use the plural verb form =
with collective nouns.  [See <b>The Little, Brown Handbook</b>, =
<b>Instructor's Annotated Edition</b>, Sixth Edition, p. 231.  Oh =
yes, and note that Little and Brown are not descriptive =
modifiers.]<br><br>(3)  A lot of confusion in this whole discussion =
rests in the use of 'collective nouns' in different ways.  One of =
the most reputable sources [<b>Fowler's Modern English Usage]</b> =
distinguishes seven [7] types of collective nouns and in a rather =
laconic explanation outlines the rules of agreement.<br><br>(4) Yet more =
misstatement has sprung from the confusion of the use of collective =
nouns and that of another abstraction; 'count nouns'.  I won't =
begin to touch that here!  [We have something of a Gilbert Ryle =
'category level' problem at this point.]<br><br>(5)  Please return =
to beating up on categories for taxa.  Hey, I'm an economist who =
started following this list about 8 months ago as I have to work with =
taxa as inputs into some model building in which I'm engaged. =
 Thus, for me; you're the experts on which I rely for 'data'. =
 I didn't expect agreement among you folks but I at least could =
follow your disagreements easier when they were in the realm of the =
biological and not the grammatical.  You'll never solve the =
problems of the lack of congruence of Romantic and Hellenic grammar and =
of the bastard stepchild, English, being an Indo-Teutonic language with =
a forced Romantic grammar system imposed upon it.  [Where's Chomsky =
when we really need him?]<br><br>....and I have sat on my hands to keep =
from writing on the fact that other fields (physics, economics, etc.) =
don't have a problem in renaming entities when the paradigm changes. =
 Much of what I've seen in the recent taxa discussion dealt with =
different paradigm [and please don't jump on my using the p-word as both =
singular and plural] into which you are now forcing a discussion of =
grammar to try to solve your differences.  Grammar should be a tool =
of explanation but will never solve the problems of differences in =
paradigm...or even category level (again, in the Ryle =
sense).<br><br>I'll now return again to just watching and hope to learn =
something about taxonomic structures. =
            &=
nbsp;  							Jim Bass =
 <br><font color=3D"#000000">----------<br>From: Richard Jensen =
<<font color=3D"#0000FF"><u>rjensen at SAINTMARYS.EDU</u><font =
color=3D"#000000">><br>To: Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM =
<<font color=3D"#0000FF"><u>TAXACOM at CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU</u><font =
color=3D"#000000">><br>Subject: Re: plural collective nouns<br>Date: =
Monday, November 02, 1998 3:04 PM<br><br>In my last communication on =
this mater, I made a rather poor choice for my example<br>by using an =
English verb construction ("have spoken") that is appropriate =
for<br>either a singular or plural subject e.g., "I have =
spoken" or "We have spoken").<br>Perhaps a better example =
would be<br><br>    "The committee is meeting in =
room 203 at noon."<br>    "The committee are =
representatives of four separate departments."<br><br>While the =
latter may not sound as pleasing as saying "The members of the =
committee<br>are...," it is grammatically correct ("The =
members of" is implicit in the<br>construction).  The point is =
that when writing in English, a collective noun (and I<br>think in =
standard usage plant family names are collective nouns) may have =
a<br>singular or plural verb depending upon the =
context.<br><br><br>--<br>Richard J. Jensen =
            &=
nbsp;TEL: 219-284-4674<br>Department of Biology =
     FAX: 219-284-4716<br>Saint Mary's College =
        E-mail: <font =
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>rjensen at saintmarys.edu</u><font =
color=3D"#000000"><br>Notre Dame, IN  46556 =
    <font =
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>http://www.saintmarys.edu/~rjensen</u><font =
color=3D"#000000"></p>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></b=
ody></html>
------=_NextPart_000_01BE06E9.1D20FB80--