Grammar debate. Very serious.

[VaughnP]

In response to Crowe:

I don't have time to go through the wall of text at the moment, but I should have stated very clearly that I am 100% aware of "everyone" being a singular pronoun and the implications of that. Everything I've learned does point to "is" being correct on the surface. I posted this thread to see if anyone could explain to me why my intuition says this has to be some sort of exception. I would never write or say "the books that everyone is talking about", I would use "are" even if incorrect. The example I posted is from a real life sentence I encountered and the firestorm that started because of it.

Also, you are 100% wrong about multiple nouns, even if singular. I literally remember a given example of this in an English course: "Anyone and everyone are invited." or "Anyone and everyone are welcome." -- those are widely used enough to the point that I'm guessing most people reading this have encountered them.

Secondly, you completely ignored the reworded version of the sentence that makes the problem myself and others are having more clear.

[VaughnP]

.

Can you post the source of this attachment?

[limitles]

Can I? Yes.

[VaughnP]

Can I? Yes.

Post it, dude.

[limitles]

Can I? Yes.

Post it, dude.

www.brightbart.com

[Crowe Diddly]

In response to Crowe:

I don't have time to go through the wall of text at the moment, but I should have stated very clearly that I am 100% aware of "everyone" being a singular pronoun and the implications of that. Everything I've learned does point to "is" being correct on the surface. I posted this thread to see if anyone could explain to me why my intuition says this has to be some sort of exception. I would never write or say "the books that everyone is talking about", I would use "are" even if incorrect. The example I posted is from a real life sentence I encountered and the firestorm that started because of it.

Maybe you should read the wall of text because I think I pretty much hit every question in the thread, and stated what the general rule about it was. It's not just correct on the surface, it's correct in every way. Your intuition is incorrect. I can't tell you why, I can just tell you that it is, and I explained why pretty thoroughly.
I would never write or say "the books that everyone is talking about", I would use "are" even if incorrect.
Fine. Good for you. "is talking" is grammatically correct. Use the contractions and see how it feels. "the books that everyone're talking about" is incorrect, blatantly so almost. "the books that everyone's talking about" sounds better, and is actually correct. Why? Because "that everyone is talking about" is a separate clause from whatever you were going to say about the books, and has its own subject and predicate which must match each other, and each other only. As you know, since the subject of that clause is everyone, it is treated as singular. If it sounds wrong to you, say it differently, but it is not incorrect in any shape or form.

Also, you are 100% wrong about multiple nouns, even if singular. I literally remember a given example of this in an English course: "Anyone and everyone are invited." or "Anyone and everyone are welcome." -- those are widely used enough to the point that I'm guessing most people reading this have encountered them.

You are right, I was indeed wrong on that part. In hindsight, what I wrote only would have been true if the words were connected with "or" or "not," but that clearly isn't the case here. I should have picked up on that part. Sorry about that.

Secondly, you completely ignored the reworded version of the sentence that makes the problem myself and others are having more clear.

which part was that?

edit: I edited the wall of text to correct the compound subject issue. Yes, when using 'and' to connect multiple subjects in a single clause, the verb needs to be plural.

[4Dragons]

I'd like to weigh in on the Grammar debate and say wholeheartedly that I prefer Spencer over Kelsey.

[VaughnP]

I ran the sentence through two grammar checkers with is, and both corrected it to are. Explain that. I still think it boils down to a plural subject.

[Crowe Diddly]

I ran the sentence through two grammar checkers with is, and both corrected it to are. Explain that. I still think it boils down to a plural subject.

You can run all sorts of weird stuff through a grammar check and come out fine. "The boy who cried about the wolf." isn't a complete sentence, but my grammar check says it is fine. Actual good grammar checking software costs $$.

I already explained fairly thoroughly how the two clauses both have their own subjects and predicates, and whether one of them is singular or plural has no bearing on if the other clause is singular or plural.

[lewfather]

wow yall nerdin out aintcha

[JACKDANIELS]

is everything ok at home vaughn ?

[Daly]

My personal 7th level of hell would be to read a 100 page thread on Grammar.

[VaughnP]

With Russia upping their game, we at Skatz decided to take a more subtle, yet just as effective approach to trolling.

[Crowe Diddly]

With Russia upping their game, we at Skatz decided to take a more subtle, yet just as effective approach to trolling.

[lewfather]

With Russia upping their game, we at Skatz decided to take a more subtle, yet just as effective approach to trolling.

Diddly of Sir Crowe, your post haveth fixed.

[limitles]

I ran the sentence through two grammar checkers with is, and both corrected it to are. Explain that. I still think it boils down to a plural subject.

You can run all sorts of weird stuff through a grammar check and come out fine. "The boy who cried about the wolf." isn't a complete sentence, but my grammar check says it is fine. Actual good grammar checking software costs $$.

I already explained fairly thoroughly how the two clauses both have their own subjects and predicates, and whether one of them is singular or plural has no bearing on if the other clause is singular or plural.

example

or write out an equation....that would be as interesting as what you posted

[Crowe Diddly]

You can run all sorts of weird stuff through a grammar check and come out fine. "The boy who cried about the wolf." isn't a complete sentence, but my grammar check says it is fine. Actual good grammar checking software costs $$.

I already explained fairly thoroughly how the two clauses both have their own subjects and predicates, and whether one of them is singular or plural has no bearing on if the other clause is singular or plural.

example

or write out an equation....that would be as interesting as what you posted

it was a grammar discussion, you silly dipsomaniac, did you expect rainbows and explosions and unicorns? Of course its fucking dry.

[VaughnP]

I honestly still maintain that somehow it actually is are. This thread isn't really intended to be a joke. The real life situation did happen.

[limitles]

example

or write out an equation....that would be as interesting as what you posted

it was a grammar discussion, you silly dipsomaniac, did you expect rainbows and explosions and unicorns? Of course its fucking dry.

"its" dry? none of that shit means anything to me but I know proper grammar so spend an hour in the trenches would ya teach

it are correct

[limitles]

.


I think heem's correct.