Cato's Grammar Grumble

[Verena]

Verena: Many thanks for the comments!

You're welcome!

[Scarpia]

Does the speaker mean "a group of [well-dressed men and women]" or "a group of [well-dressed men] and women?"  "Were" suggests the latter.

I see.  I foresee a pedantic puzzle. 

A group of well dressed men and women were entering the hotel.  Were the women well dressed?  No!   If they were part of the well dressed group we would have to say "was entering" the hotel!

[Cato]

I see.  I foresee a pedantic puzzle. 

A group of well dressed men and women were entering the hotel.  Were the women well dressed?  No!   If they were part of the well dressed group we would have to say "was entering" the hotel!

A+ !  for you, Scarpia!       Very pedantic puzzle indeed!

[karlhenning]

A group of well-dressed men and floozies . . . .

[karlhenning]

Or, were entering might suggest that they entered the hotel by severals means and ingresses . . . but then, that would vitiate the degree to which they were acting as a group . . . .

[Cato]

A group of well-dressed men and floozies . . . .

I love "floozies" !   0:)

As opposed to : I love floozies!   

[Chosen Barley]

I see.  I foresee a pedantic puzzle. 

A group of well dressed men and women were entering the hotel.  Were the women well dressed?  No!   If they were part of the well dressed group we would have to say "was entering" the hotel!

When I went to school back in the Pleistocene epoch, our teacher gave us examples not unlike the above and told us to rewrite them so that there is absolutely no mistaking what the speaker intended.  The teacher understood that even when you use perfect grammar the sentence would nevertheless sound stilted and not the way people comfortably talk (except for maybe somebody like William F. Buckley, who of course doesn't talk at all anymore.)

I would have said (why do you have to say "group" in the first place?): Several well-dressed men and women were entering the hotel.

However, if the women were not well-dressed, I would change the sentence to read:

Some women, accompanied by well-dressed men, were entering the hotel.

What do you think? 

[karlhenning]

I love "floozies" !   0:)

As opposed to : I love floozies!   

In a rest room (I promise to keep this clean) I recently saw a sign which the inscriber intended to read PRESS BUTTON FOR FLUSH.  However, the cross-stroke in the aitch did not ink in, so what I actually read was PRESS BUTTON FOR FLUSII.

And I thought, All right, if you wish, and isn't that a colorful alternative spelling for "floozie"?

[Scarpia]

When I went to school back in the Pleistocene epoch, our teacher gave us examples not unlike the above and told us to rewrite them so that there is absolutely no mistaking what the speaker intended.  The teacher understood that even when you use perfect grammar the sentence would nevertheless sound stilted and not the way people comfortably talk (except for maybe somebody like William F. Buckley, who of course doesn't talk at all anymore.)

I would have said (why do you have to say "group" in the first place?): Several well-dressed men and women were entering the hotel.

However, if the women were not well-dressed, I would change the sentence to read:

Some women, accompanied by well-dressed men, were entering the hotel.

What do you think?

Exactly.  A graceful sentence is one that is clear and doesn't require extensive analysis to resolve grammatical ambiguities.  Why invoke the "group" if it is not essential to the narrative.  It is the superfluous nature of the "group" that makes the singular form sound stilted.  In cases where the idea of a group is more essential the singular form sounds natural.  For instance, "a well dressed group of men makes a better impression than a bunch of slobs."

[karlhenning]

A lump of slobs

[karlhenning]

A haberdash of fine gentlemen.

[DavidRoss]

When I went to school back in the Pleistocene epoch, our teacher gave us examples not unlike the above and told us to rewrite them so that there is absolutely no mistaking what the speaker intended.  The teacher understood that even when you use perfect grammar the sentence would nevertheless sound stilted and not the way people comfortably talk (except for maybe somebody like William F. Buckley, who of course doesn't talk at all anymore.)

I would have said (why do you have to say "group" in the first place?): Several well-dressed men and women were entering the hotel.

However, if the women were not well-dressed, I would change the sentence to read:

Some women, accompanied by well-dressed men, were entering the hotel.

What do you think?

I think there's a significant difference between several individuals entering and a group entering.  A group implies a massed body, an association, and a unity of purpose that does not apply if several individuals enter.

[Chosen Barley]

I think there's a significant difference between several individuals entering and a group entering.  A group implies a massed body, an association, and a unity of purpose that does not apply if several individuals enter.

Of course that is true.  That is why the context is important.  Who is talking or writing about the people entering the hotel?  Is this a casual conversation; is this police reporting; is this a newpaper article?  What was going on that someone felt a need to comment on these men and women entering the hotel? 

[karlhenning]

Happened again, in an otherwise heartening human-interest piece:

"And unfortunately in our society, whomever shouts the loudest is going to get the most air time."

[Cato]

Happened again, in an otherwise heartening human-interest piece:

Just like my students, when they are trying to "sound smart"    to impress me!

Technically there is nothing wrong with the colloquial "is going to get."   "Will get" or "will receive" or (the more dynamic) "will seize" would be more elegant.

[DavidRoss]

Just like my students, when they are trying to "sound smart"    to impress me!

Technically there is nothing wrong with the colloquial "is going to get."   "Will get" or "will receive" or (the more dynamic) "will seize" would be more elegant.

even better, just "gets"

[Joe Barron]

Technically there is nothing wrong with the colloquial "is going to get."   "Will get" or "will receive" or (the more dynamic) "will seize" would be more elegant.

I don't think "seize" would work here. It doesn't carry the connotation, as get does, that the air time is some sort of reward for talking the loudest. If you seize the air time anyway, why the need to talk loud? Receive might indeed be more elegant, but I think "get" has more punch. It isn't just that there is nothing "wrong" with being colloquial. Sometimes colloquial is preferable.

[Chosen Barley]

. It isn't just that there is nothing "wrong" with being colloquial. Sometimes colloquial is preferable.

Yes.  What a good point you've made.  (Or should I have said, "You've made a good point"" or "You make a good point" or "What a good point you make!")

[Cato]

Yes.  What a good point you've made.  (Or should I have said, "You've made a good point"" or "You make a good point" or "What a good point you make!")

Yowza!   0:)

"Is you is or is you ain't my baby?"   

No way to clean that up and make it scan!

Or is there?   

Sounds like a challenge!   

[knight66]

Yowza!   0:)

"Is you is or is you ain't my baby?"   

No way to clean that up and make it scan!

Or is there?   

Sounds like a challenge!   

To be or not to be my baby

That is the question


Mike