Korean Job Discussion Forums

JAWINSEOUL · Joined: 19 Nov 2005

I'm not sure if the word Material in this application is plural or singualar.

One of the core contents is its course materials that were created in outstanding undergraduate or graduate schools of the world.

It is regarding the collection and storage of information from several courses into a database. Materials just sounds funny

hermes.trismegistus · Joined: 08 Sep 2005

Plural.

The materials were created.

Namaste.

JAWINSEOUL · Joined: 19 Nov 2005

Thanks

Tiberious aka Sparkles · Joined: 23 Jan 2003 Location: I'm one cool cat!

Perhaps it should read:

One of the core contents is its course materials, which were created in outstanding undergraduate or graduate schools around the world.

Delirium's Brother · Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:09 pm Post subject:

Moldy Rutabaga · Joined: 01 Jul 2003 Location: Ansan, Korea

I see these as separate but combined sets of uncountable objects, and thus correct-- that is, a collection of material is materials. In the same way I would call "the fruits and vegetables of eurasia" correct.

I agree that around the world is better. Of the world sounds like you're excluding the schools of.. other worlds?

Ken:>

Delirium's Brother · Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:43 pm Post subject:

@Moldy Rutabaga:

I wonder if you might expand your post/explanation a bit, I'm not quite following your argument.

Moldy Rutabaga · Joined: 01 Jul 2003 Location: Ansan, Korea

It may not be correct, but I would explain the usage this way: material and fruit are uncountable nouns (there is a lot of material, fruit in the room). But there can be collections of discrete sets of uncountable nouns: the rains of September. The fruits of central America. So a compilation of separate pages of material (information) would be course materials.

Ken:>

Delirium's Brother · Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:24 am Post subject:

@ Moldy Rutabaga:
Thanks, now I understand: you are discussing the differences between partitive constructions with mass nouns and generic constructions, e.g. /a glass of beer/ v. /beers of the world/. And I agree with you inasmuch as what you've written is correct, but I think that the problem is deeper. Here's why:

Without the background knowledge that the OP supplied about the writer's intent, multiple readings of the original sentence are still possible for an unaquainted reader. This is because there is a structural ambiguity with the syntax of the sentence that we can parse with the extra background knowledge, but that an unfamiliar reader wouldn't be able to do. My sense is that at some point in the cognitive production of the sentence there was a deletion of a syntactically and semantically important constituent: the noun phrase head of the predicate nominal expressing proper inclusion. This is hinted at because the verb agreement for number doesn't match between the main clause and the dependent relative clause (i.e. /is/ and /were/). The dependent clause seems like a later addition so the verbal agreement of the dependent clause matches the denuded predicate nominal. The underlying structure of the original sentence probably looked something like:

/One of the core contents is its [collection of] course materials + [dependent clause]/.

And the kernel sentence was probably something like:

/One is X + [dependent clause]/

So the true answer to the OP's original question is surprisingly that neither is really right without some revision to the original sentence. Either /material/ is singular, which would match the main clause verbal agreement requiring a change in the verb of the dependent clause; or /material/ is plural, i.e. /materials/, matching the dependent clause but requiring a change in the verbal agreement of the main clause. The second choice also requires a new subject, because /one/ just won't work in this case.

BUT I COULD BE WRONG; I'm just a linguistic anthropologist, not a linguist or English rhetoric and literature professor.

The easiest solution if you are editting a mss. is to re-write the sentence as follows:

/One of its core contents is a collection of course materials created in outstanding undergraduate and graduate schools around the world./

OR closer to the original:

/One of the core contents is its collection of course materials that was created in outstanding undergraduate and graduate schools around the world./

Itallics are mine.

Satori · Joined: 09 Dec 2005 Location: Above it all

hermes.trismegistus · Joined: 08 Sep 2005

One of the key factors contributing to the success of the team was the bottles of Gatorade that were handed out to all competitors.

[One of the key factors] (<-Singular) [was] (<-Singular) [the bottles of water] (<-Plural) [that were~~] (<-Plural)

Yes, it may get worded better, but there seems no problem with syntax.

Ambiguity can be found in many guises.

Many semantic strings can have many interpretations. If not, we'd have no parable.

Namaste.

Delirium's Brother · Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:29 pm Post subject:

You are making me re-think this. Interesting:

One of the key factors was the bottles of Gatorade that were handed...
One of the key factors was the Gatorade that was handed...
* One of the key factors was the Gatorades that were handed...
One of the key factors was the collection of materials that was handed...
One of the key factors was the collection of material that was handed...
One of the key factors was the material that was handed...
One of the key factos was the materials that were handed...

I'm going back to the drawing board...these sentences might not all have the same underlying structure, even though they appear to have the same surface structure. I'm especially interested that #1 and #4 don't seem to be following the same template. #3 might not be so much ungrammatical as colloquial. But again I say, I could be wrong in all this.

If someone is a member of L-sys-func or L-sys-ling this would be an interesting question to post over there.