| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
MoneyMike
Joined: 03 Dec 2008
|
 Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 9:32 pm Post subject: Tricky grammar Q |
 |
|
Hey guys, I searched online but couldn't find an answer to this question, so I was hoping a grammar expert could help me out.
My co-teacher showed me a sentence from a reading passage which she will be teaching soon. This part of a sentence confused us both a little bit:
Researchers found that exposure to light and sound were not responsible for any illnesses.
Her question was why use 'were' in that sentence, since exposure is given in the singular?
Appreciate any help! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lichtarbeiter
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 10:18 pm Post subject: Re: Tricky grammar Q |
|
|
| MoneyMike wrote: |
Hey guys, I searched online but couldn't find an answer to this question, so I was hoping a grammar expert could help me out.
My co-teacher showed me a sentence from a reading passage which she will be teaching soon. This part of a sentence confused us both a little bit:
Researchers found that exposure to light and sound were not responsible for any illnesses.
Her question was why use 'were' in that sentence, since exposure is given in the singular?
Appreciate any help! |
Personally I would prefer to use "was" rather than "were" in order to avoid the confusion that you just mentioned.
However, it could be argued that "were" is acceptable if you assume that underlyingly there's a second noun phrase 'exposure to sound' which undergoes ellipsis to prevent redundancy.
So, underlyingly, the sentence would look as follows:
"Researchers found that exposure to light and (exposure to) sound were not responsible for any illnesses."
The use of 'were' rather than 'was' captures this underlying representation, and psychologically might build more of an interpreted separation between the two elements ('exposure to light' vs. 'exposure to sound'). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YTMND
Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Location: You're the man now dog!!
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Researchers found that exposure to light and sound were not responsible |
Two singular events, they aren't happening together at the same time or being collectively referred to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lesigh
Joined: 09 Apr 2012
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="YTMND"]
| Quote: |
| Researchers found that exposure to light and sound were not responsible |
I can see the confusion of your co-teacher. It's actually quite simple.
What are the two things not responsible?
[Exposure to light] and [sound]
If it were to be "exposure to light and sound" not being responsible, meaning exposure only (to whatever being irrelevant for verb agreement), the it would read:
Researchers found that exposure (to light and sound) was not responsible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YTMND
Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Location: You're the man now dog!!
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="lesigh"]
| YTMND wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Researchers found that exposure to light and sound were not responsible |
I can see the confusion of your co-teacher. It's actually quite simple.
What are the two things not responsible?
[Exposure to light] and [sound]
If it were to be "exposure to light and sound" not being responsible, meaning exposure only (to whatever being irrelevant for verb agreement), the it would read:
Researchers found that exposure (to light and sound) was not responsible. |
Your whole post needs clerical editing.
I was commenting on:
1) exposure to light
2) exposure to sound
I see a 1, I see a 2, I go with plural Jack Trebek, were (even though he is a naughty *beep* as Sean Connery would put it on an SNL skit). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lesigh
Joined: 09 Apr 2012
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
^ If English were that simple, then they wouldn't bother with hiring all of us bumbling native speakers.
Exposure is a singular noun in this sentence. If it were plural, we both know it would be exposures which exists in English.
Ex: Numerous exposures to secondhand smoke are dangerous.
The grammar in the sentence gets confusing because the question is: are there two subjects, one with a prepositional phrase attached and one not, or is it a singular subject with only a prepositional phrase? I don't see why my post needs clerical editing. I was offering what I know about grammar, not correcting your opinion, YTMND. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Singular subject, but refers to two elements connected by "and" = plural.
The impact of drinking and smoking were shown in the video.
Yes, technically there are 2 things being referred to, so I can see why someone would want to use "impacts".
But that doesn't sound right to my ear.
Why? Because the full sentence would be :
The impact of drinking and of smoking = plural.
Many EFL teachers found that exposure to Dave's and alcohol were a dangerous combination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tardisrider
Joined: 13 Mar 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| This might be one of those teachable moments when you discuss the difference between grammatical prescription and common usage. In other words, same same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 8:51 am Post subject: Re: Tricky grammar Q |
|
|
| lichtarbeiter wrote: |
However, it could be argued that "were" is acceptable if you assume that underlyingly there's a second noun phrase 'exposure to sound' which undergoes ellipsis to prevent redundancy.
So, underlyingly, the sentence would look as follows:
"Researchers found that exposure to light and (exposure to) sound were not responsible for any illnesses." |
Ellipsis is commonplace in English, as, I think, in all languages, and explains a lot of expressions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YTMND
Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Location: You're the man now dog!!
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| If it were plural, we both know it would be exposures which exists in English. |
| Quote: |
| I was offering what I know about grammar, not correcting your opinion, YTMND. |
That's not how it was being used in this example. Being plural doesn't have to come from 1 thing.
1. The watermelons were delicious.
2. They were eating a watermelon.
Watermelon could be plural, but in the 2nd sentence two people are eating from only 1 watermelon. We don't have to add an "s" to make it plural. Now, change that to an apple:
3. He / was eating an apple.
4. She / was eating an apple.
5. He and she / were eating an apple.
| Quote: |
| I don't see why my post needs clerical editing. |
| Quote: |
| [Exposure to light] and [sound] |
6. Exposure to light
7. Exposure to sound
End result: 2, not 1
Being plural doesn't mean you always have to add an "s" as you assert in the first quote, "If it were plural, we both know it would be exposures". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MoneyMike
Joined: 03 Dec 2008
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks for the info guys. I'm sure I can explain that better now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 8:11 am Post subject: Re: Tricky grammar Q |
|
|
| MoneyMike wrote: |
Hey guys, I searched online but couldn't find an answer to this question, so I was hoping a grammar expert could help me out.
My co-teacher showed me a sentence from a reading passage which she will be teaching soon. This part of a sentence confused us both a little bit:
Researchers found that exposure to light and sound were not responsible for any illnesses.
Her question was why use 'were' in that sentence, since exposure is given in the singular?
Appreciate any help! |
Hello Mike,
I see you got your threads worth already...but thought I might just add something to this.
In general, the context would give us the answer, but without it
were...denotes ellipsis...a double subject
was...denotes a single subject.
Both are possible in that sentence...but they have different meanings.
Researchers found that exposure to light and sound were not responsible for any illnesses.
were= exposure to light and exposure to sound...two distinct subjects
Researchers found that exposure to light and sound was not responsible for any illnesses.
was = exposure to light and sound...a single subject...the precise combination of the two
Read.
Researchers found that exposure to light and sound was not the combination that was responsible for any illnesses.
It was exposure to light and heat that was the cause of the illnesses.
Hope this is useful |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
