Grammar, etc.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

Consider this a meta thread to capture questions about the English language.

I'm in a discussion about whether or not this sentence (written by Peggy Noonan) is correctly constructed.  The conclusions are not unanimous.  What says the surly braintrust?

"We are a people that has experienced something epic together."

[DaysOff 7851]

Who

[jimmyjazz 45546]

1 minute ago, DaysOff said:

Who

Maybe.  What about "has"?

The key seems to be whether or not "people" is singular.  I'm not sure where I land on this.

[thunderlounge 7754]

Grammatically correct? You want grammatically correct?

 

Fuck the fucking fuckers.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

I'm leaning towards the phrase "a people" being a singular noun, and thus "has" is correct.  Were it just "We are people" that would change.  I'm old and brain dead, though.

 

 

Edited Saturday at 05:07 PM by jimmyjazz

[Gil Bang 25897]

Noonan's a kook and a cunt, but she is a solid wordsmith. 

[dcbc 14404]

On 11/9/2024 at 9:09 AM, jimmyjazz said:

Maybe.  What about "has"?

The key seems to be whether or not "people" is singular.  I'm not sure where I land on this.

 

 

On 11/9/2024 at 11:06 AM, jimmyjazz said:

I'm leaning towards the phrase "a people" being a singular noun, and thus "has" is correct.  Were it just "We are people" that would change.  I'm old and brain dead, though.

 

 

It should be "have" because the subject is "We[;]"  "a people," is a direct object.  So I guess it's a compounds sentence.   We are "a people" (it actually should be just "people," but I guess she thinks it sounds folksy) and we have experienced something epic.  You wouldn't say, "We has."

 

Also, since we're talking about grammar, "whether or not" is redundant.  You can just say "whether."

Edited Tuesday at 02:02 AM by dcbc

[jimmyjazz 45546]

30 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Also, since we're talking about grammar, "whether or not" is redundant.  You can just say "whether."

Point taken.  I usually get that correct in the written word, but when I dash something off I sometimes just transcribe my inner voice, which is probably that of a less than eloquent American.

[dcbc 14404]

22 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Point taken.  I usually get that correct in the written word, but when I dash something off I sometimes just transcribe my inner voice, which is probably that of a less than eloquent American.

Nah, we all do it.  That's what writing is.  We hear it all the time, and so we write it.  It's not wrong, but it's something I got corrected on when I started my current job about 23 years ago, and it's stuck with me since then. 

Edited Tuesday at 02:46 AM by dcbc

[TwiceHorn 31263]

1 hour ago, dcbc said:

Nah, we all do it.  That's what writing is.  We hear it all the time, and so we write it.  It's not wrong, but it's something I got corrected on when I started my current job about 23 years ago, and it's stuck with me since then. 

It kind of cracks me up when people put "whether or not" in questions presented./lawdog talk

Part of it I guess is that questions presented often try to pack in as many words into a sentence or two as is humanly possible.  And "or not" are a couple of throwaways even if you're not being pedantic.

Edited Tuesday at 04:01 AM by TwiceHorn

[dcbc 14404]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It kind of cracks me up when people put "whether or not" in questions presented./lawdog talk

Part of it I guess is that questions presented often try to pack in as many words into a sentence or two as is humanly possible.  And "or not" are a couple of throwaways even if you're not being pedantic.

Questions/Issues presented aside, I don't ordinarily get too hung up on cutting unnecessary words for the sake of cutting.  When I'm writing, I'm trying to maintain a rhythm.  Sometimes, more words suit that.  Other times, something shorter fits the bill. 

[F250 28680]

On 11/9/2024 at 9:07 AM, DaysOff said:

Who

As I recall, she wrote speeches for Reagan and hit peak attractiveness during the Dubya years.

Regarding grammar, I have technical writers and attorneys to correct my illiteracy.

Edited Tuesday at 04:35 AM by F250

[thunderlounge 7754]

11 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I sometimes just transcribe my inner voice, which is probably that of a less than eloquent American.

Mine says fuck. A lot. 

[Braff Zacklin 13409]

12 hours ago, dcbc said:

It should be "have" because the subject is "We[;]"  "a people," is a direct object.

Forgive me, I'm very rusty at this, but here goes: (inhales deeply)

"Has" is conjugated for "people" because it is part of a dependent clause that serves as a predicate noun and subject complement, not a direct object. "Are" is a linking verb, not an action verb, so "people" in this instance cannot be a direct object.

"We are" represents the subject and verb and is a complete sentence. The predicate noun, "people," further defines what the subject is.  The rest of the noun phrase "that has experienced something epic together" directly applies to the predicate noun "people," so the verb "has" should be conjugated for it, not the sentence subject "we."

[Bevo 13525]

On 11/9/2024 at 9:05 AM, jimmyjazz said:

"We are a people that has experienced something epic together."

We are a people is a sentence.

[dcbc 14404]

6 minutes ago, Bevo said:

We are a people is a sentence.

Yes, but not a great one.  

[dcbc 14404]

22 minutes ago, Braff Zacklin said:

Forgive me, I'm very rusty at this, but here goes: (inhales deeply)

"Has" is conjugated for "people" because it is part of a dependent clause that serves as a predicate noun and subject complement, not a direct object. "Are" is a linking verb, not an action verb, so "people" in this instance cannot be a direct object.

"We are" represents the subject and verb and is a complete sentence. The predicate noun, "people," further defines what the subject is.  The rest of the noun phrase "that has experienced something epic together" directly applies to the predicate noun "people," so the verb "has" should be conjugated for it, not the sentence subject "we."

In hindsight, I should have taken Grammar instead of History of the English Language at UT.   

[Braff Zacklin 13409]

6 minutes ago, dcbc said:

In hindsight, I should have taken Grammar instead of History of the English Language at UT.   

No, I'm pretty certain you chose the better path.

Edited Tuesday at 03:35 PM by Braff Zacklin

[dcbc 14404]

18 minutes ago, Braff Zacklin said:

No, I'm pretty certain you chose the better path.

Honestly, HotEL was probably the worst class I took in my major.  Middle English can bite me.  

 

Back to the sentence at hand, regardless of grammatical correctness, I'd say it's still not well written simply because it's jarring.  She might as well have written, "We are a people[,]" as a stand-alone sentence because everything that followed stopped me dead in my tracks as a reader.  

Edited Tuesday at 03:53 PM by dcbc

[ztejas 43262]

Wrong. If not technically I'm not a fan stylistically.

Who have*

[dcbc 14404]

1 minute ago, ztejas said:

I'm not a fan stylistically.

This.  I edited my previous post to suggest the same.

[ztejas 43262]

On 11/9/2024 at 9:09 AM, jimmyjazz said:

Maybe.  What about "has"?

The key seems to be whether or not "people" is singular.  I'm not sure where I land on this.

Nevermind - just thought about it further.

I think people should always be plural.

Because if you subbed say, family, for people you would write it "we are a family that has"

You wouldn't say "they are a people that has experienced x".

(Family I could listen to a case for either way maybe)

Edited Tuesday at 03:59 PM by ztejas

[dcbc 14404]

1 minute ago, ztejas said:

We is inclusive and turns people into a plural.

However - I think it's up for interpretation as if she is wanting "people" to be inclusive or not. 

As soon as you put "a" in front of people, it makes it a singular group.  Ultimately, it's just not good writing.  It loses its momentum right out of the gate with word choice and structure.

[TwiceHorn 31263]

11 hours ago, dcbc said:

Questions/Issues presented aside, I don't ordinarily get too hung up on cutting unnecessary words for the sake of cutting.  When I'm writing, I'm trying to maintain a rhythm.  Sometimes, more words suit that.  Other times, something shorter fits the bill. 

My dad was an excellent writer, both in terms of rules of grammar and style (and word choice) and a sort of compositional rhythm.  He was not formally musically trained, although his sister/my aunt was an excellent pianist.

I think I'm too much of a technician and lack that musicality to be very good at that.  And that is reinforced by the time I spend drafting patent claims, where stray words are trouble.  But my clarity is usually pretty good, unless CaptainAnt is reading my shit.

Edited Tuesday at 04:03 PM by TwiceHorn

[ztejas 43262]

5 minutes ago, dcbc said:

As soon as you put "a" in front of people, it makes it a singular group.  Ultimately, it's just not good writing.  It loses its momentum right out of the gate with word choice and structure.

I guess so. I think it just sounds weird.

[dcbc 14404]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

My dad was an excellent writer, both in terms of rules of grammar and style (and word choice) and a sort of compositional rhythm.  He was not formally musically trained, although his sister/my aunt was an excellent pianist.

I think I'm too much of a technician and lack that musicality to be very good at that.  And that is reinforced by the time I spend drafting patent claims, where stray words are trouble.  But my clarity is usually pretty good, unless CaptainAnt is reading my shit.

I'm not a great musician, but I can play (passably) several instruments.  That background undoubtedly influences my writing style.  But clarity is more important, and I wish more people writing what I have to read on a daily basis would embrace it in their writings.

4 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I guess so. I think it just sounds weird.

I agree.  If I were her editor, I would have written "awkward" in the margin.

Edited Tuesday at 04:11 PM by dcbc

[jimmyjazz 45546]

So are we getting close to either "that has" or "who have" being the proper construction?

[Bevo 13525]

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

Nevermind - just thought about it further.

I think people should always be plural.

Because if you subbed say, family, for people you would write it "we are a family that has"

You wouldn't say "they are a people that has experienced x".

(Family I could listen to a case for either way maybe)

 

This is incorrect - We are a group (of people) - people in this case is singular.

[dcbc 14404]

21 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So are we getting close to either "that has" or "who have" being the proper construction?

I'm deferring to Zaff Bracklin and declaring the grammatical rules he referenced to be above my pay grade.  I'm not sure we touched on the use of "that."  I don't like how it reads, and considering that "a people" is a group, I think I might opt for "which" instead of "who," but I'm not 100% confident on my choice.  "Who" sounds more natural to me.

Edited Tuesday at 05:10 PM by dcbc

[jimmyjazz 45546]

Full confession, I often just switch that/which/who around in sentences where at least two are needed until it sounds right to my ear.  But, my writing is totally informal at this point.  I don't even write my patent disclosures.

[dcbc 14404]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Full confession, I often just switch that/which/who around in sentences where at least two are needed until it sounds right to my ear.  But, my writing is totally informal at this point.  I don't even write my patent disclosures.

I'm guilty of using "that" when "which" would be more appropriate.  I think if you're even thinking about what might be grammatically correct, you're doing far better than most.

Edited Tuesday at 05:23 PM by dcbc

[South Austin 52129]

On 11/9/2024 at 8:53 PM, Gil Bang said:

Noonan's a kook and a cunt, but she is a solid wordsmith. 

[ztejas 43262]

46 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

This is incorrect - We are a group (of people) - people in this case is singular.

Idk. Let's thicken the plot. I don't have word currently but Google docs agrees that have is more appropriate.

Still not sure what the rule or rules are here that are applicable but I'm trusting my gut. #1 doesn't sound right and it's why JJ started the thread. 

[ztejas 43262]

2 hours ago, ztejas said:

Nevermind - just thought about it further.

I think people should always be plural.

Because if you subbed say, family, for people you would write it "we are a family that has"

You wouldn't say "they are a people that has experienced x".

(Family I could listen to a case for either way maybe)

Here's more. I was right. It has to do with the specific word "people".

Yay English!

It's kind of like "they". You would never say "they has" even though they can be used to refer to a singular noun.

More:

Edited Tuesday at 05:55 PM by ztejas

[Bevo 13525]

4 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Here's more. I was right. It has to do with the specific word "people".

Yay English!

It's kind of like "they". You would never say "they has" even though they can be used to refer to a singular noun.

More:

That is all correct except "However, whenever we use the term "people" we're always referring to more than one person. In fact, we are referring to a lot of individuals.

Well that isn't correct in this example. The author is referring to a people as a group not as individuals - like as a troop of monkeys. Maybe it is a specific grammar rule for people, though, or maybe some other word such as collective would be better.

 

[TwiceHorn 31263]

1 hour ago, dcbc said:

I'm guilty of using "that" when "which" would be more appropriate.  I think if you're even thinking about what might be grammatically correct, you're doing far better than most.

I am psychotic about , which as a non-restrictive clause.

[dcbc 14404]

24 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I am psychotic about , which as a non-restrictive clause.

, which is a different story.   I meant in restrictive clauses.  "That" or "who usually is appropriate there, but there are some instances (no examples come to mind) where which might be best (and I still lean toward that).

Edited Tuesday at 07:38 PM by dcbc

[nolongerU2horn 749]

https://www.reddit.com/r/EnglishLearning/comments/l4fs0s/is_a_people_correct/

 

 

[ztejas 43262]

2 hours ago, Bevo said:

The author is referring to a people as a group not as individuals - like as a troop of monkeys.

I mean at the end of the day it's always describing a group of individual persons in some fashion or another.

Not trying to get into the semantics - I think the grammar rule here is "fuck you that's why". 

Good luck ESL learners.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

I really think "a people" is singular, as in "a collection".  You wouldn't say a collection of baseball cards ARE worth $4,000 you would say it IS worth $4,000.

(No, I don't own any baseball cards, and now that I think about it, I never have.  Ha.  Some of friends were deep into that.)

[Bevo 13525]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Some of friends were deep into that.)

 

This is incorrect.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

2 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

This is incorrect.

Oh damn.

[Bevo 13525]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Oh damn.

It's cool. You can buy me a bourbon.

[ztejas 43262]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I really think "a people" is singular, as in "a collection".  You wouldn't say a collection of baseball cards ARE worth $4,000 you would say it IS worth $4,000.

(No, I don't own any baseball cards, and now that I think about it, I never have.  Ha.  Some of friends were deep into that.)

But you don't say "a people is" you say "a people are".

[Bevo 13525]

2 hours ago, ztejas said:

But you don't say "a people is" you say "a people are".

https://www.reddit.com/r/EnglishLearning/comments/l4fs0s/is_a_people_correct/

 

The example given is "Asgard is not a place, it is a people". It depends unfortunately on context. Is it talking about individuals in a group or a group where everyone is alike?

[ztejas 43262]

20 minutes ago, Bevo said:

https://www.reddit.com/r/EnglishLearning/comments/l4fs0s/is_a_people_correct/

 

The example given is "Asgard is not a place, it is a people". It depends unfortunately on context. Is it talking about individuals in a group or a group where everyone is alike?

I'm not sure how that changes anything. Seems like a different construction entirely.  In your example - Asgard is the subject. "a people" has nothing to do with the "is". The "is" is being modified by "Asgard". 

That reddit post is asking if it's okay to use the term "a people" there and it's totally fine. I don't have a problem with "a people" it's the "a people is" that starts to sound backwoodsy. (or in JJ's example "a people that has")

Edited yesterday at 12:41 AM by ztejas

[Bevo 13525]

5 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I'm not sure how that changes anything. Seems like a different construction entirely.  In your example - Asgard is the subject. "a people" has nothing to do with the "is". The "is" is being modified by "Asgard". 

That reddit post is asking if it's okay to use the term "a people" there and it's totally fine. I don't have a problem with "a people" it's the "a people is" that starts to sound backwoodsy. (or in JJ's example "a people that has")

Yeah, that's why I wonder if it is an exception to the rule or is flexible. A people is a population of humans or a people are a population of individuals may both be correct.

[ztejas 43262]

33 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Yeah, that's why I wonder if it is an exception to the rule or is flexible. A people is a population of humans or a people are a population of individuals may both be correct.

Damn I like this response because it makes you think even further.

Part of the issue with the original statement is it begins with "we". It immediately quits working when you expand that to: "We, as a people, is a population..."

Like, no, get the fuck out of here with that 😆

Maybe that's the root of it. The writer in question is trying to pair a plural with a noun that is rarely used as a singular. It's like tenses are flying all over the place and it makes everything clunky.

[ztejas 43262]

For whatever reason, I think:

"We are a people that has..."

sounds closer to right than:

"We are a people that is..."

but it's the same issue and wrong in both instances. 

Phrase it that 2nd way in public and you will immediately be taken less seriously. 

[Jerry Callo 8663]

Data is . . .  or

Data are . . .

Go!