Solutions for our pop-up quiz from Monday, Nov. 9th:
According to the prompt in the email, you had to find ONE pronoun-antecedent disagreement:
WRONG sentence: "I mean, who in THEIR right mind would make such a claim if it wasn't true?"
RIGHT sentence: "I mean, who in HIS or HER right mind would make such a claim if it weren't true?"
(You only needed to spot the pronoun-antecedent disagreement; not the "was/were" mistake!)
The rule behind it: "Who" is always singular, like "anybody," "nobody," "somebody," "someone," "anyone," and "no one."
With regard to our most recent pop-up quiz, there is one person, Sylvia Chalker, who argues against the "right grammar rules." Here is a link to one page of a review article where this person gives good reasons for why one might need to rethink a "correct grammar rule."
The rule is: "WHO is always singular." After reading this critique's statement, how do you personally think about this issue? Is Sylvia Chalker right? Is she wrong? If you could change the grammar rule, would you do so, and why? Or, why not?
HOMEWORK: Post a short comment to this blog (or, if you cannot blog for some reason, email me, or bring a print-out), giving your personal opinion. Due date: Monday, Nov. 16th, at class time. This post is worth 5 points and makes up for the 5 points missed if you didn't spot the mistake in the pop-up quiz. If you did spot it, you'll get 10 points altogther!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
After reading this critique by Sylvia Chalker I personally feel that she is wrong and that "who" can also be plural, not just singular. I feel this way because a plural verb is better for the sentence "Who, the hawks, or the doves, are contributing most to the cause of peace?" This shows that a plural can be used if it's felt a plural answer is needed. Another example sentence that makes more sense plural is "Who were fighting among themselves at the time?" Here the grammatical context, instead of the semantics. The last type of sentence that sounds better is "Who have the leading roles in this production?" This shows a linking example that is fallowed by a plural noun group that semantically is in a sort of complementary relationship to the subjects.
ReplyDeleteI would change the grammar rule because based off of these three example "who" sounds good plural and that "who" can be not just singular, but plural. I would change this because some sentences sound better plural and not just only singular.
I agree with Sylvia Chalker that "who" can be plural. Not allowing "who" to be plural may make things difficult when comparing the word to "somebody," "nobody," etc. They have similar meanings and therefore should be judged on the same level. Chalker does a good job of giving examples that exploit why "who" should be used as plural. For example: "Who have been appointed director and stage manager?" This clearly shows how the plural "who" would work grammatically and still sound correct. It will make it less confusing for everybody if 'who' was no longer seen as singular.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article, I agree with Sylvia Chalker in that "who" can definitely be plural. She uses great examples as well, such as: "Who, the hawks or the doves, are contributing most to the cause of peace?" These types of sentences work well with plural verbs and there is no need to think that "who" can only be singular. The understanding of such sentences remains and it still sounds grammatically correct. Also, a sentence like, "who have been appointed director and stage manager?" works well too. It is easily understood and again, sounds grammatically correct. I think that if "who" were seen as plural, it would make the understanding of some sentences a lot easier, and less confusing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sylvia Chalkner. The definition of the word "who" states that "what person of persons, which person or persons..." So, the word could be used in the plural form. Also the example she uses: 2. Who, the hawks or the doves, are contributing most to the cause of peace?, shows that who can easily be used in this form. The reason people may think it is not grammatically correct is because they are not used to using who in that context.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article, I would agree with Chalker. In my opinion the rule "Who is always singular" may have been accepted at one time, but these days, it is more commonly accepted that "who" can be singular or plural.
ReplyDeleteI would be more likely to say "Who is going to work together on this project?" but "Who are going to work together on this project?" seems reasonable,even though some consider it incorrect.
I think that in today's society many have accepted "who" as being neutral, even if the expected answer is singular for some.
I would have to agree with Sylvia Chalker that "who" could also be plural. After reading all of the sentence aloud that used "who" as plural it sounds like it would work either way, singular or plural. The example that was given, "Who is going to win the 1,000 metres tomorrow night?" Who is refering to which person, meaning "who" could be used as plural as well. I don't think there is anything wrong with it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sylvia Chalker about Who also being plural. Either who or whom made sense in most almost all plural or singular cases. I feel that it is more commonly accepted to use who in plural sentences such as who have you been going with it sounds correct even though many would claim that it should be whom.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Sylvia Chalker about the "who" rule. I think she brings up a good point giving examples of when "who" makes less sense in forced plural cases. For example, "who are going to work together on this project". I think while grammar rules are important in language structure, there is a wide range of acceptable forms of grammar, in this case "who" and "whom"
ReplyDeleteAlthough the points that Sylvia Chalker presents are logical and she supports her argument, I do not feel this is enough backing to change a long-standing rule. The sentence examples she provided where it was assumed the who was plural sounded very awkward and detracted from what the sentence was even saying. There are already plenty of rules within the English language that have exception, there is no point in adding another rule with an exception. Even though it may not make sense why we use a singular form for "who" when we know the answer is going to be plural, everyone has gotten used to this way of speaking, and it is entirely too late to try and change it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sylvia Chalker when she states that the word "who" can be used to describe both singular and plural cases. In the sentence, "Who is going tomorrow?", it is unclear whether or not there is one more person going or two. However, even though she brings up good points, I don't think this rule will ever be adopted because some scholars may think it's lazy or a rule-breaking situation just because we aren't sticking to the grammatical errors.
ReplyDeleteWhile sylvia Walker makes a good case for the pluralization of who, I do not necessarily agree with her on the subject. I understand why she feels the way she does about who being considered "only" singular, but at he same time the sentence examples she provides read in an incredibly odd manner. I do no think that I would change the grammar rule because it seems to work well the way that it is now. Personally I don't think it really matters which way that you use who, but just be prepared for some quizzical faces when you say, "Who play the duets in tomorrows concert."
ReplyDeleteWalker almost makes the pluralization of "who" rational, but I disagree. A grammar rule is a grammar rule. However, in the cases where you list specific people, I can understand where "who" would be acceptable. In general, though, I would not change the grammar rule because it seems natural for it to be singular. If there is question as to its plurality, I would just try to avoid the situation of using "who" altogether.
ReplyDelete