Most authorities on the use of the English language have ideas about how to begin a sentence. Some strongly oppose opening with "There's." Seldom do we tune in on a radio or TV newscast without hearing announcements such as: "There's more people using this bridge every day"; "There's some new intriguing political events to talk about this morning"; "There's more rare books in this lady's house than you'll ever find in your (hometown) library."
These examples are authentic; I didn't make them up. In every instance, the plural verb was required: "There are." The best solution is to rearrange or recast the sentence: Every day, more people use this bride; We have some new intriguing political events to talk about this morning; You'll find more rare books in this lady's house than in your hometown library.
The basic rule, understood by most Americans, is that the subject and verb determine the number of the verb. The words intervening between subject and verb have no bearing on the number, and this is where mistakes occur, often through haste or carelessness. The use of certain pronouns renders speakers and writers especially vulnerable in this regard. Each, every, either, neither, everybody, nobody, none, and someone are singular, wherever placed in the sentence.
Perhaps the chief mischief-maker among these is none, meaning not one or no one: None of our classmates was present, not were. However, exceptions arise, as in: "None are so mistaken as those who say money guarantees happiness."
The misuse of the first-person pronoun as the object of a verb is common among college graduates and even big shots who consider their English above reproach. On a recent talk show, we heard: "My parents helped my husband and I through college." We would naturally expect a Rhodes scholar to do better, but Bill Clinton implores us to "give Al Gore and I a chance." By all means give they a chance. Them are out to improve education.
Many otherwise knowledgeable writers and speakers appear to have missed out on sentences expressed in the imperative mood sentences asking permission or issuing commands. The same person who says, "Let's (Let us) go to the movies" will say, "Let's we sisters get together soon." In the first example, us is the object of the verb let. In the second, we sisters should be let us sisters. The verbs let ,allow, and permit require the objective case because the subject (often you) is understood.
Let and leave also cause confusion. Let means to allow; leave means to go away from. "Let me do that for you" asks permission. "Leave me alone so I can finish this job" is a command a more polite way of saying, "Get outta here, you so-and-so." You is the unexpressed subject in both instances. So-and-so is a euphemism.
Although no one expects proper English from Olympic contestants regardless of nationality (training often begins before kindergarten, robbing the child of interest in or energy for anything else), our Barcelona announcers, some college-educated, demonstrated little knowledge of basic language skills, let alone vocabulary. Again, singulars and plurals, pronouns and verbs took a beating, and lay for lie, shined for shone, which for who, and try and for try to were standard.
Momentarily for presently, and a long ways for a long way also prevailed. As I have explained to no avail before, momentarily means at the moment, not in a moment. Presently means in a moment. In most instances, the announcers meant the next contestant would appear in a moment, but they used momentarily to tell us so.
They also kept telling us a swimmer or runner still had a long ways to go, or was a long ways from winning a medal. This tarnished oldie is also used regularly by hundreds of other countrymen of ours despite our manifold efforts to change them. A world-bank economist has responded to a question about ethics in banking with, "It can be argued eyether ways."
Either or eyether, the singular modifier renders the noun singular even if there are two ways. It's still one way or the other.
Finally, let me (not I) remind readers who spurn these columns that if the number can be counted, the items are always fewer, not less. A well-known network staffer, reporting on the Barcelona Games, announced that the USA garnered "less medals than the Soviets."
Let us (not we) take comfort in the thought that Olympic medals are almost the only positives we have fewer of than the Soviets, Unified or alone.
Connect with the Southeast Missourian Newsroom:
For corrections to this story or other insights for the editor, click here. To submit a letter to the editor, click here. To learn about the Southeast Missourian’s AI Policy, click here.