Re: A group of little girls was/were playing in the park.

[¨£¨¬¨£andcarole¢À¢À]

On Mar 31, 2:43�am, Barbara Bailey > wrote:
> Oleg Lego > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 04:21:16 -0000, Mark Brader posted:
>
> >>"Datere" asks about:
> >>> A group of little girls *were playing in the park.
> >>> A group of little girls *was playing in the park.
> ...
> >>The answer is that "were" is correct and "was" is wrong. �Expressions
> >>like "a group of..." and "a number of..." are almost always construed
> >>as plural. �Nouns referring to groups are construed as singular only
> >>if you are thinking of the group as a single unit, which would be
> >>very unusual for an expression like "a group of".
>
> > Well, whenever I think of a "group of" anything, I think of it as a
> > single unit, namely, a group.
>
> Same here. "Group" is the noun, "of..." is an adjectival phrase modifying
> it. In Datere's original sentences, "a group was playing..." �or "girls
> were playing.."

Nothing better to do besides being usenets spellchecker?

[Jthread]

On Mar 31, 12:46Â*pm, ªºªandcarole♣♣ > wrote:
> On Mar 31, 2:43�am, Barbara Bailey > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Oleg Lego > wrote :
>
> > > On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 04:21:16 -0000, Mark Brader posted:
>
> > >>"Datere" asks about:
> > >>> A group of little girls *were playing in the park.
> > >>> A group of little girls *was playing in the park.
> > ...
> > >>The answer is that "were" is correct and "was" is wrong. �Expressions
> > >>like "a group of..." and "a number of..." are almost always construed
> > >>as plural. �Nouns referring to groups are construed as singular only
> > >>if you are thinking of the group as a single unit, which would be
> > >>very unusual for an expression like "a group of".
>
> > > Well, whenever I think of a "group of" anything, I think of it as a
> > > single unit, namely, a group.
>
> > Same here. "Group" is the noun, "of..." is an adjectival phrase modifying
> > it. In Datere's original sentences, "a group was playing..." �or "girls
> > were playing.."
>
> Nothing better to do besides being usenets spellchecker?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Oleg Lego]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:46:56 -0700 (PDT), ¨£¨¬¨£andcarole¢À¢À posted:

>On Mar 31, 2:43?am, Barbara Bailey > wrote:
>> Oleg Lego > wrote :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 04:21:16 -0000, Mark Brader posted:
>>
>> >>"Datere" asks about:
>> >>> A group of little girls *were playing in the park.
>> >>> A group of little girls *was playing in the park.
>> ...
>> >>The answer is that "were" is correct and "was" is wrong. ?Expressions
>> >>like "a group of..." and "a number of..." are almost always construed
>> >>as plural. ?Nouns referring to groups are construed as singular only
>> >>if you are thinking of the group as a single unit, which would be
>> >>very unusual for an expression like "a group of".
>>
>> > Well, whenever I think of a "group of" anything, I think of it as a
>> > single unit, namely, a group.
>>
>> Same here. "Group" is the noun, "of..." is an adjectival phrase modifying
>> it. In Datere's original sentences, "a group was playing..." ?or "girls
>> were playing.."
>
>Nothing better to do besides being usenets spellchecker?

I just love it when the idiot brigade drops by with a poorly
punctuated non-sequitur.

--
WCdnE

[Oleg Lego]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:25:34 -0700 (PDT), Jthread posted:

>On Mar 31, 12:46*pm, ªºªandcarole?? > wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 2:43?am, Barbara Bailey > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Oleg Lego > wrote :
>>
>> > > On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 04:21:16 -0000, Mark Brader posted:
>>
>> > >>"Datere" asks about:
>> > >>> A group of little girls *were playing in the park.
>> > >>> A group of little girls *was playing in the park.
>> > ...
>> > >>The answer is that "were" is correct and "was" is wrong. ?Expressions
>> > >>like "a group of..." and "a number of..." are almost always construed
>> > >>as plural. ?Nouns referring to groups are construed as singular only
>> > >>if you are thinking of the group as a single unit, which would be
>> > >>very unusual for an expression like "a group of".
>>
>> > > Well, whenever I think of a "group of" anything, I think of it as a
>> > > single unit, namely, a group.
>>
>> > Same here. "Group" is the noun, "of..." is an adjectival phrase modifying
>> > it. In Datere's original sentences, "a group was playing..." ?or "girls
>> > were playing.."
>>
>> Nothing better to do besides being usenets spellchecker?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

Hey, you left your bum-buddy up there in a previous thread.

--
WCdnE

[bobandcarole[_45_]]

On Apr 1, 1:10�am, Oleg Lego > wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:46:56 -0700 (PDT), ������andcarole�"� posted:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 31, 2:43?am, Barbara Bailey > wrote:
> >> Oleg Lego > wrote :
>
> >> > On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 04:21:16 -0000, Mark Brader posted:
>
> >> >>"Datere" asks about:
> >> >>> A group of little girls *were playing in the park.
> >> >>> A group of little girls *was playing in the park.
> >> ...
> >> >>The answer is that "were" is correct and "was" is wrong. ?Expressions
> >> >>like "a group of..." and "a number of..." are almost always construed
> >> >>as plural. ?Nouns referring to groups are construed as singular only
> >> >>if you are thinking of the group as a single unit, which would be
> >> >>very unusual for an expression like "a group of".
>
> >> > Well, whenever I think of a "group of" anything, I think of it as a
> >> > single unit, namely, a group.
>
> >> Same here. "Group" is the noun, "of..." is an adjectival phrase modifying
> >> it. In Datere's original sentences, "a group was playing..." ?or "girls
> >> were playing.."
>
> >Nothing better to do besides being usenets spellchecker?
>
> I just love it when the idiot brigade drops by with a poorly
> punctuated non-sequitur.
>

Betcha love those big black schlongs too, dontcha?

[Bob Cunningham]

On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:10:15 -0600, Oleg Lego
> said:

[...]

> I just love it when the idiot brigade drops by with a poorly
> punctuated non-sequitur.

The brigade doesn't drop by as a monolithic unit. It's
composed of individuals, each presumably free to join in or
not. The brigade drop by.

[Oleg Lego]

On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:07:35 -0700, Bob Cunningham posted:

>On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:10:15 -0600, Oleg Lego
> said:
>
>[...]
>
>> I just love it when the idiot brigade drops by with a poorly
>> punctuated non-sequitur.
>
>The brigade doesn't drop by as a monolithic unit. It's
>composed of individuals, each presumably free to join in or
>not. The brigade drop by.

But then we'd say the brigade members drop by.

--
WCdnE

[Bob Cunningham]

On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:05:45 -0600, Oleg Lego
> said:

> On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:07:35 -0700, Bob Cunningham posted:
>
> >On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:10:15 -0600, Oleg Lego
> > said:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> I just love it when the idiot brigade drops by with a poorly
> >> punctuated non-sequitur.
> >
> >The brigade doesn't drop by as a monolithic unit. It's
> >composed of individuals, each presumably free to join in or
> >not. The brigade drop by.
>
> But then we'd say the brigade members drop by.

We could say that, but it's easier to say correctly "The
brigade drop by", if that's what we mean.

An extreme example of hyperdevotion to apparent number could
be

The barracks doors flew open. A pair of irate
soldiers made its way to the center of the parade
ground, drew its pistols and shot each other dead.

A usage that I see too often in our newspaper can be
exemplified by "The couple was married and spent its
honeymoon in Niagara Falls". It clearly should be "The
couple were married and spent their honeymoon in ... ".

Two people are married to each other. "The couple was
married" leaves me wondering what it was married to.

[Rowan Hawthorn[_2_]]

On Apr 1, 6:54�pm, Bob Cunningham > wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:05:45 -0600, Oleg Lego
> > said:
>
> > On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:07:35 -0700, Bob Cunningham posted:
>
> > >On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:10:15 -0600, Oleg Lego
> > > said:
>
> > >[...]
>
> > >> I just love it when the idiot brigade drops by with a poorly
> > >> punctuated non-sequitur.
>
> > >The brigade doesn't drop by as a monolithic unit. �It's
> > >composed of individuals, each presumably free to join in or
> > >not. �The brigade drop by.
>
> > But then we'd say the brigade members drop by.
>
> We could say that, but it's easier to say correctly "The
> brigade drop by", if that's what we mean.
>
> An extreme example of hyperdevotion to apparent number could
> be
>
> � �The barracks doors flew open. �A pair of irate
> � �soldiers made its way to the center of the parade
> � �ground, drew its pistols and shot each other dead.
>
> A usage that I see too often in our newspaper can be
> exemplified by "The couple was married and spent its
> honeymoon in Niagara Falls". �It clearly should be "The
> couple were married and spent their honeymoon in ... ".
>
> Two people are married to each other. �"The couple was
> married" leaves me wondering what it was married to.

You are correct sir.

I invite you to join my blog.
http://rowanhawthorn.blogspot.com/

--
Rowan Hawthorn


"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy
the Vampire Slayer"

[Big Habeeb (a.k.a. Mitch)[_7_]]

On Mar 31, 2:25Â*pm, Jthread > wrote:
> On Mar 31, 12:46Â*pm, ªºªandcarole♣♣ > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 31, 2:43�am, Barbara Bailey > wrote:
>
> > > Oleg Lego > wrote :
>
> > > > On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 04:21:16 -0000, Mark Brader posted:
>
> > > >>"Datere" asks about:
> > > >>> A group of little girls *were playing in the park.
> > > >>> A group of little girls *was playing in the park.
> > > ...
> > > >>The answer is that "were" is correct and "was" is wrong. �Expressions
> > > >>like "a group of..." and "a number of..." are almost always construed
> > > >>as plural. �Nouns referring to groups are construed as singular only
> > > >>if you are thinking of the group as a single unit, which would be
> > > >>very unusual for an expression like "a group of".
>
> > > > Well, whenever I think of a "group of" anything, I think of it as a
> > > > single unit, namely, a group.
>
> > > Same here. "Group" is the noun, "of..." is an adjectival phrase modifying
> > > it. In Datere's original sentences, "a group was playing..." �or "girls
> > > were playing.."
>
> > Nothing better to do besides being usenets spellchecker?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

bwaaaaaaaa hahahahaha what a ****ing bunch of asshole lovers.

[Rowan Hawthorn[_2_]]

On Apr 2, 1:25Â*pm, "Big Habeeb (a.k.a. Mitch)"
> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 2:25Â*pm, Jthread > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 31, 12:46Â*pm, ªºªandcarole♣♣ > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 31, 2:43�am, Barbara Bailey > wrote:
>
> > > > Oleg Lego > wrote :
>
> > > > > On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 04:21:16 -0000, Mark Brader posted:
>
> > > > >>"Datere" asks about:
> > > > >>> A group of little girls *were playing in the park.
> > > > >>> A group of little girls *was playing in the park.
> > > > ...
> > > > >>The answer is that "were" is correct and "was" is wrong. �Expressions
> > > > >>like "a group of..." and "a number of..." are almost always construed
> > > > >>as plural. �Nouns referring to groups are construed as singular only
> > > > >>if you are thinking of the group as a single unit, which would be
> > > > >>very unusual for an expression like "a group of".
>
> > > > > Well, whenever I think of a "group of" anything, I think of it as a
> > > > > single unit, namely, a group.
>
> > > > Same here. "Group" is the noun, "of..." is an adjectival phrase modifying
> > > > it. In Datere's original sentences, "a group was playing..." �or "girls
> > > > were playing.."
>
> > > Nothing better to do besides being usenets spellchecker?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> bwaaaaaaaa hahahahaha what a ****ing bunch of asshole lovers.

Don't post your spam here.

--
Rowan Hawthorn


"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy
the Vampire Slayer"