English q

[Luke]

Bleugh, too early, and I don't do grammar jargon. But my morning head thinks that this word-ordering is used to emphasize the 'have me', in the sense of being defined, trapped, or caught, essentially possesed, which is essentially what 'pegged' means. The other constructions I can think of which use this ordering all carry this implication of being caught or defined or made to do something - you have me trapped in...., you have me down as...., you have me run all this way.. The only context in which I can imagine 'you have me amused' working would be one in which being amused was something one had striven against - 'and now, finally, you have me amused' - though it sounds odd. But I'm probably missing something very obvious...

[Scarpia]

Another idiom with the same formulation is "you have me dead to rights."   More generally, "you have me shot," "you have me fired," "you have me thrown to the wolves."  What follows "you have me" should be something that gets done to me.  "You have me amused" doesn't fit the bill.

[Verena]

Bleugh, too early, and I don't do grammar jargon. But my morning head thinks that this word-ordering is used to emphasize the 'have me', in the sense of being defined, trapped, or caught, essentially possesed, which is essentially what 'pegged' means. The other constructions I can think of which use this ordering all carry this implication of being caught or defined or made to do something - you have me trapped in...., you have me down as...., you have me run all this way.. The only context in which I can imagine 'you have me amused' working would be one in which being amused was something one had striven against - 'and now, finally, you have me amused' - though it sounds odd. But I'm probably missing something very obvious...

   

Another idiom with the same formulation is "you have me dead to rights."   More generally, "you have me shot," "you have me fired," "you have me thrown to the wolves."  What follows "you have me" should be something that gets done to me.  "You have me amused" doesn't fit the bill.

Thanks very much, Luke and Scarpia - very interesting!

[Ten thumbs]

Which is correct:

There is a host of factors
There are a host of factors

Thanks

host is a singular group noun and therefore 'there is a host' is correct, just as you would say 'there is a crowd gathering' rather than 'there are a crowd gathering'.

[Verena]

Which is correct:

    There is a host of factors
    There are a host of factors

    Thanks


host is a singular group noun and therefore 'there is a host' is correct, just as you would say 'there is a crowd gathering' rather than 'there are a crowd gathering'.

In this case, it depends on the variety AFAIK. That much I do know. I just forgot which varieties prefer which version. In fact, a google search shows that both versions are very frequently used.

[Scarpia]

host is a singular group noun and therefore 'there is a host' is correct, just as you would say 'there is a crowd gathering' rather than 'there are a crowd gathering'.

A synonym for host is multitude.  Would you say

there is a multitude of reasons one might go to Spain, or there are a multitude of reasons one might go to Spain?  I can see the argument for is, but are sounds more normal to me.

[secondwind]

Well, would you say "There is a box of crackers on the table" or "There are a box of crackers on the table"?  Easy.  "Box" is a singular noun (like "host" and "multitude"), so the verb must be in the singular form. 

[Scarpia]

Well, would you say "There is a box of crackers on the table" or "There are a box of crackers on the table"?  Easy.  "Box" is a singular noun (like "host" and "multitude"), so the verb must be in the singular form.

Your example is not equivalent.  Box is a simple noun, a single object regardless of how many crackers are inside.  A "multitude" is a collective noun, and can be treated as a singular or plural depending on whether you are referring to the entity as a whole or to the individuals that make up the entity.  For instance, "my family is large" but "my family are early risers."  The issue is more complex in the case of a collective noun, and it may be that both forms are acceptable.

[Verena]

The issue is more complex in the case of a collective noun, and it may be that both forms are acceptable.

If you have a look at how the word is actually used (e.g. by looking at corpora), then both forms are clearly acceptable, the only questions is whether different varieties favor different forms. E.g. google lists 261.000 examples of "there is a multitude of reasons" and 268.000 examples of "there are a multitude of reasons". In both cases, the very high numbers of uses of these particular constructions seems to be clear evidence that both forms are OK - if native speakers use the constructions in both of these ways, then both are acceptable (from a descriptive point of view).

[Scarpia]

If you have a look at how the word is actually used (e.g. by looking at corpora), then both forms are clearly acceptable, the only questions is whether different varieties favor different forms. E.g. google lists 261.000 examples of "there is a multitude of reasons" and 268.000 examples of "there are a multitude of reasons". In both cases, the very high numbers of uses of these particular constructions seems to be clear evidence that both forms are OK - if native speakers use the constructions in both of these ways, then both are acceptable (from a descriptive point of view).

Poking around the internet I saw indications that use of plural in the example in question would be more common in British English than in American English.

[Verena]

Poking around the internet I saw indications that use of plural in the example in question would be more common in British English than in American English.

That's an interesting observations and it would, I think, fit into the bigger picture: In American English, a verb used as a predicate of a collective noun subject has to be singular ("The government is divided"); in British English, use of "The government are divided" is also possible (I just checked a book by a linguist).
So it would make sense if British English also allowed "There are a multitude of reasons", because as in the case of "The government are divided", such a usage overrides the purely syntactic type of agreement ("singular head noun requires singular verb") in favor of a more semantic/content-oriented type of agreement ("if the subject can be conceptualised/constitutes as a multitude, then the plural verb is allowed").

[Ten thumbs]

Your example is not equivalent.  Box is a simple noun, a single object regardless of how many crackers are inside.  A "multitude" is a collective noun, and can be treated as a singular or plural depending on whether you are referring to the entity as a whole or to the individuals that make up the entity.  For instance, "my family is large" but "my family are early risers."  The issue is more complex in the case of a collective noun, and it may be that both forms are acceptable.

It is true there are subtleties but 'my family are early risers' is only correct because risers is a plural. 'The government are divided' becomes correct because of the suggestion of division, whereas it must be preferable to state 'The government is united'. As has been pointed out it depends on the aspect of the collected noun that is under consideration.

[Scarpia]

It is true there are subtleties but 'my family are early risers' is only correct because risers is a plural. 'The government are divided' becomes correct because of the suggestion of division, whereas it must be preferable to state 'The government is united'. As has been pointed out it depends on the aspect of the collected noun that is under consideration.

Isn't English wonderful?  It must be tough for academics to come up with rules to fit the nonsense that people said in the old times before there were rules.

[Verena]

Isn't English wonderful?  It must be tough for academics to come up with rules to fit the nonsense that people said in the old times before there were rules.

There is no language without rules (or something similar to it). I'd say being rule-governed is one of the hallmarks of language .. But probably we're talking about different types of rules. Linguists are usually not interested in the rules one finds in a textbook, but in the abstract principles that underlie language use. Usually, the rules found in varieties that can develop relatively freely, ie. without external constraints such as grammar books, make more sense, because grammars tend to stall certain natural developments the language would otherwise take. So, in a sense, I'd expect people in the old days to have spoken less nonsense than today. 

[arkiv]

Which sentence is correct?

1. I can't get my friend driving more slowly

2. I can't get my friend drive more slowly

[MishaK]

Which sentence is correct?

1. I can't get my friend driving more slowly

2. I can't get my friend drive more slowly


Thanks.

Neither. I can't get my friend to drive more slowly.

[arkiv]

Neither. I can't get my friend to drive more slowly.

Thanks. 

[Ten thumbs]

Neither. I can't get my friend to drive more slowly.

I don't see the relevance of 'get' though. Wouldn't 'persuade' be more appropriate unless your actually trying to take over the wheel!

[MishaK]

I don't see the relevance of 'get' though. Wouldn't 'persuade' be more appropriate unless your actually trying to take over the wheel!

"get" is perfectly acceptable in spoken English, and it's broader in meaning than simply "persuade"; e.g. "I can't get this piece of junk computer to work!"

[Sylph]

For epicous:

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/