Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Grammar Question
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Job-related Discussion Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

YTMND

Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Location: You're the man now dog!!

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:33 am Post subject:

Quote:

A' can also be used if signify something when it is undetermined or unquantified.

Unless you can go in a time machine and change the past, then it is determined and quantified. "I saw a full moon the other day." It's not necessarily a full moon now.

Did you see an/the eclipse? We would say, "Have you seen an ___?" Again, this is referring to the past, not a past.

Quote:

i.e. A herd of cattle came down the mountain. ('A' is used as it's undetermined)

The number is determined, 1. Whether it is 7/7 of a herd or 3/3 of a herd is not the communicative point in, "A herd came down the mountain." Instead you would say something like a "A herd of ___ came down the mountain."

Quote:

It's to do with 'imaginary' set theory if anything, if you want to see it as mathematical.

A series is a set, a set is not always a series.
A cat is an animal, an animal is not always a cat.

Again, for a TV show, they would chunk sets of tv shows but call the whole season a series not a set. You watch a TV series, not a TV set.

Quote:

A geometric series, an arithmetic series...

And these are not complete or finalized. In the example we are faced with a past event. It may not be true today, but geometric series and arithmetic series are.

Quote:

The point is that 'series' is already inherently plural.

Not always. A TV series could run 1 year and be done. Regardless if you watched 12/12 of the episodes or 18/18 of the episodes you watched all of them. We would say you watched THE series, not a series. Anything less would be missing at least "an" episode.

Quote:

some readers may be sticklers for subject-verb agreement

Yea, "stickling" can keep you up late when you have a full day the next. I don't want to do that again tonight. Please ignore my comments above.

pegasus64128

Joined: 20 Aug 2011

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:57 am Post subject:

Quote:

A' can also be used if signify something when it is undetermined or unquantified.

YTMND wrote:

Unless you can go in a time machine and change the past, then it is determined and quantified. "I saw a full moon the other day." It's not necessarily a full moon now.

I gave an example. At no point did I say that all examples using 'a/an' are
the same.

YTMND wrote:

Did you see an/the eclipse? We would say, "Have you seen an ___?" Again, this is referring to the past, not a past.

Again, it's just a different example that actually just reinforces my point that the use of 'A series..' has many different possible contexts, and the OP's sentence has more than one possible context imo.

Quote:

i.e. A herd of cattle came down the mountain. ('A' is used as it's undetermined)

YTMND wrote:

The point is not that it's a number (1) of herds. It's that you can put it that way in the past tense, just as 'A series of episodes left..' is past tense.

Quote:

It's to do with 'imaginary' set theory if anything, if you want to see it as mathematical.

YTMND wrote:

A series is a set, a set is not always a series.
A cat is an animal, an animal is not always a cat.

In the OP's sentence, it is either a set of episodes OR more than one set of episodes - ambiguous.

Quote:

Again, for a TV show, they would chunk sets of tv shows but call the whole season a series not a set. You watch a TV series, not a TV set.

Again, that's not the point. The point is that series can have different contexts, and I'm sorry but you're just reinforcing the ambiguity of that word in certain contexts.

Quote:

A geometric series, an arithmetic series...

YTMND wrote:

And these are not complete or finalized. In the example we are faced with a past event. It may not be true today, but geometric series and arithmetic series are.

That was just to make the point that you can express a series in singular form. You can..

Quote:

The point is that 'series' is already inherently plural.

YTMND wrote:

Again, in the context of the OP's sentence (which is what we're supposed to be discussing) it is not clear that the 'series' in question is singular. It could be plural. It's inherently plural in the context of the OP's sentence if it's 'series' in plural form.

WI-Do wrote:

Thank you everyone for the responses. I've explained to my co-worker that it's a stylistic choice and that Americans tend to prefer the former and Brits the latter. I've also said that Americans are more likely to accept either one in speaking because of the proximity principle, but that in American writing some readers may be sticklers for subject-verb agreement.

You're welcome. I'm not American and I would accept either one, given the obscure context of the sentence you were faced with.

YTMND

Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Location: You're the man now dog!!

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:54 am Post subject:

Quote:

'A series of episodes left..' is past tense.

That sounds like they ARE remaining, not past.

Quote:

In the OP's sentence, it is either a set of episodes OR more than one set of episodes - ambiguous.

No, they used "series" not set.

A series is a set, a set is not always a series. If they used multiple sets, it is still a series. A month of weekends has usually 4 sets of 2 days. If you say month, we don't assume there are 5 or 3 but 4.

Again, you are trying tell me 1+2=18 when the convention is not to invent that type of math logic. 1+2=3 in the typical math book. A series is a COMPLETE singular unit. Regardless if it comprises of sets or is the set, it is the TOTAL.

Quote:

it is not clear that the 'series' in question is singular.

I am trying to see one example of it not being singular besides imaginary made up stuff that isn't in the real world. So far you have thrown out math examples and things in the present or might happen in the future. However, if I saw a herd of cattle the other day, then I know I didn't see 2 or more.

If I experienced a series of episodes last week, that was the series. I didn't experience 2, or otherwise I would cut off the series into two parts and note that.

If your only argument is ambiguity, then that is an acceptable reason for saying it is wrong. Clarity is just as important as spelling and tenses. If it was supposed to be singular, you don't need to change it to be clarified. However, if it is 2 or more then you are opening the door to ambiguity.

The sentence was "A series of episodes "has"/"have"_____"

If series is plural, then please tell me what the singular form of "series" is then. The more I think about this, the less and less I see plausibility in identifying it as plural.

Last edited by YTMND on Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:28 am; edited 1 time in total

WI-Do

Joined: 01 Feb 2012

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:00 am Post subject:

YTMND wrote:

Quote:

some readers may be sticklers for subject-verb agreement

Yea, "stickling" can keep you up late when you have a full day the next. I don't want to do that again tonight. Please ignore my comments above.

I'm not sure how to take your comment, but sticklers (used since the 16th century) for subject-verb agreement is why I also suggest students don't use the singular they/them/their in formal writing. As I stated in the previous post, I'm thankful for all the comments people post.

WI-Do

Joined: 01 Feb 2012

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:11 am Post subject:

pegasus64128 wrote:

"Series" in the original post must be singular. There is no way for the indefinite article to attach to a plural series in that sentence. If we change "series" to "chain," we can see that the plural noun simply doesn't work.

A chain of episodes has left permanent imprints on their mind.
*A chains of episodes has left permanent imprints on their mind.

The issue has always remained about whether the collective noun can agree with verb have, even though it's not technically a plural noun. In keeping with the use of "chain" instead of "series," we can try it again from the top.

1. A chain of episodes has left permanent imprints on their mind.
2. A chain of episodes have left permanent imprints on their mind.

My intuition says that both are fine. If I were writing a college paper, I would definitely use the former. If I were talking, I'd probably use the latter. I could even see some slight differences between the meanings, but I'd probably look at that as a Venn diagram where there is a lot of overlap in meaning.

YTMND

Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Location: You're the man now dog!!

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:16 am Post subject:

Here are some interesting arguments. Of course, I am going to mention ones that support my position, but there are opposing ones as well at http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=493859 [but "a series" is singular because of the word "a", so here you have to say "there is", not "there are".]

pegasus64128

Joined: 20 Aug 2011

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:27 am Post subject:

Quote:

'A series of episodes left..' is past tense.

YTMND wrote:

That sounds like they ARE remaining, not past.

No, the episodes are finished. Their minds are still imprinted in the present. 'A series of episodes left their minds permanently..'
It's already happened. The permanent effects have already taken place.

Quote:

In the OP's sentence, it is either a set of episodes OR more than one set of episodes - ambiguous.

YTMND wrote:

No, they used "series" not set.

A series is a set, a set is not always a series. If they used multiple sets, it is still a series. A month of weekends has usually 4 sets of 2 days. If you say month, we don't assume there are 5 or 3 but 4.

Again, you are trying tell me 1+2=18 when the convention is not to invent that time of math logic. 1+2=3 in the typical math book. A series is a COMPLETE singular unit. Regardless if it comprises of sets or is the set, it is the TOTAL.

Firstly, use of CAPITAL letters usually comes across as if you're desperate, and are shouting. No need.

I'm not familiar with your style of Math(s) regarding 1+2=18.
In the context of the OP's sentence, a 'series' is very similar to a set.
In dictionaries, it's defined as a group. You're just arguing about the semantics used for discussion now.. I don't want to discuss that as it's not at all intrinsic to the point.

Quote:

it is not clear that the 'series' in question is singular.

YTMND wrote:

No, you appear to be trying to see your own point of view.

Mathematical reasoning is not just 'imaginary made up stuff that isn't in the real world'.

YTMND wrote:

2. If I experiences a series of episodes last week, that was the series. I didn't experience 2 or otherwise I wouldcut off the series into two parts and not that.

'their minds' -> more than one mind -> possibly more than one series of episodes ...

YTMND wrote:

If your only argument is ambiguity, then that is an acceptable reason for saying it is wrong. Clarity is just as important as spelling and tenses. If it was supposed to be singular, you don't need to change it to be clarified. However, if it is 2 then you are opening the door to ambiguity.

The door is opened to ambiguity because 'series' is an irregular noun.
I thought that was clear.

YTMND wrote:

The sentence was "A series of episodes "has"/"have"_____"

If series is plural, then please tell me what the singular form of "series" is then. The more I think about this, the less and less I see plausibility in identifying it as plural.

It's not plural in the sentence. The word itself carries inherent plurality.
I see what's happening. You're still fixated with the concept that their can't be 'a/an series' and it be plural as 'a/an' implies singular. That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying it's not singular. I'm saying that it's inherently plural by definition. A series is usually made up of something. The OP mentioned it. It's as much to do with style as it is any clear rule.

It's got nothing to do with 'a/an' other than you can say a herd of cattle, or a flock of birds. herd and flock are similar to series in that they imply
plurality, and hence the possibility to use the word 'have'.

A TV series is made up of episodes...
This is why it's difficult to define it as singular, especially when 'episodes' is plural.

YTMND wrote:

but there are opposing ones as well at http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=493859

That's all I was trying to say. Thanks for the link btw.

WI-Do wrote:

1. A chain of episodes has left permanent imprints on their mind.
2. A chain of episodes have left permanent imprints on their mind.

My intuition says that both are fine.

Mine too. I also agree with both of you that 'has' is the best fit, even though we may agree for differing reasons.

I think part of the problem is people misuse words like series.

e.g. 'A series of containers has/have marbles inside them'

You shouldn't really use the word series here but some people do.
In my opinion the above sentence implies 'series' in plural form and would make more sense as:

'A series of containers have marbles inside them'

But again, it's arguably misuse of the language.

ddeubel

Joined: 20 Jul 2005

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:49 pm Post subject:

I love grammar, it brings out the Nazi that is hidden in many of us!

My go to guy for grammar goods is Richard Firsten and his grammatically speaking. http://bit.ly/J1doy8

Here's what he says about the issue. Makes sense and lovely that English is so flexible that it can allow us to describe things as one solid entity or a flexible set.

DD
http://eflclassroom.com

Quote:

Dear Richard,

I've been tutoring a student from Turkey. During one of our private classes, he said, "My family are coming for a visit next month." I told him he should say, "My family is coming." He looked very surprised and insisted that he had learned to say are with family when he started learning English back in Izmir. I felt pretty insecure at that moment and didn't know how to respond because he's very intelligent, and I don't think he was confused--or was he? Is it actually okay to say My family are...?

Neil Cranmer
Los Angeles, CA USA

Dear Neil,

Although it may seem surprising, your student is right, but I should note right away that he's right more for British English than for American. There are some nouns, especially in British English, that can take a third-person singular or plural verb; family is one example. A speaker focusing on family as a whole unit can say my family is, but a speaker focusing on all the individuals that make up the group would say the family are. Some other nouns that are typically used in this way in British English are audience, committee, government, and jury.

American English has something like this. For example, an American might say, "We sent the company what it had asked for" or "We sent the company what they had asked for," and listeners wouldn't blink at hearing either pronoun.

Thanks for your question, Neil. Now, you don't need to feel insecure over this!

YTMND

Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Location: You're the man now dog!!

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:53 pm Post subject:

Quote:

but a speaker focusing on all the individuals

Then why not say in our thread example, "each of the series" instead of "a" series?

Each implies more than 1, there is a reason why we have that as opposed to "a". If I am talking about a cat, I don't say dog (or litter if you want to stick to the thread) even though they are both animals.

I don't mean to go nazi, but I can't shrug this one off and just stay "Oh it's a ruddy British thing."

I actually think British English is more thorough in many ways, but why we mix and match words like this is beyond me.

pegasus64128

Joined: 20 Aug 2011

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:21 pm Post subject:

ddeubel wrote:

Quote:

Thanks for that. It's a more concise example.
Can we close the book on this now?

YTMND

Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Location: You're the man now dog!!

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:02 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Can we close the book on this now?

No, I am throwing it in the fireplace Laughing

WI-Do

Joined: 01 Feb 2012

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:38 am Post subject:

pegasus64128 wrote:

Thanks for that. It's a more concise example.
Can we close the book on this now?

Yes we can, but may we? Laughing

pegasus64128

Joined: 20 Aug 2011

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:54 am Post subject:

WI-Do wrote:

pegasus64128 wrote:

Thanks for that. It's a more concise example.
Can we close the book on this now?

Yes we can, but may we? Laughing

Yes we may, but shouldn't we? Razz

The Cosmic Hum

Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:12 am Post subject:

ddeubel wrote:

Quote:

hmm...it appears this example has satisfied the posters at war on this thread... Wink

Unfortunately, it is not related to the OP.
The OP is not a British / American issue.
Series is not a word that has a cultural barrier.
It is a context related word...not a culturally related word.
This was not a case of Americans seeing 'series' as singular and Brits seeing it as plural...or vice versa.

It is a bit more complicated than that...but only a bit.

While I would love nothing more than to see this thread put to bed, it would be a mistake to think the OP could be explained away by using cultural reference.

While using those cultural examples may make it easier for those who do not like to use prescriptive analysis... it does little to clear up the grammar point in the OP.

I realize this is not going to be a popular post in light of the peace making efforts of late...just thought it should be put out there that this grammar point is not related to cultural perception.

WI-Do wrote:

To be clearer...and acknowledge what was already stated..this is very well put.
But I take this from the entire context of the OP...not just the word series.

Interesting thread WI-Do. Wink

pegasus64128

Joined: 20 Aug 2011

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:09 am Post subject:

The Cosmic Hum wrote:

WI-Do wrote:

To be clearer...and acknowledge what was already stated..this is very well put.
But I take this from the entire context of the OP...not just the word series.

Interesting thread WI-Do. Wink

I agree that he chose the most sane and understandable way to explain it to his coworker. Better that than baffle him/her with the arguments for 'has' (plural quantification) Vs. 'have' (predicate logic).

I agree that it was an interesting thread by the OP.

Nooooo, I've been sucked back in! Shocked

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Job-related Discussion Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe