A misunderstanding of English grammar
Undine Giuseppi, in her 'Do you Know?' column of Nov, 24, 2002, highlighted spelling and grammatical 'mistakes' that she found in our local newspapers and expressed disgust and intolerance over the fact that editors should ceaselessly foist them on paying readers. 'I stand open-mouthed,' she protested in righteous indignation, 'wondering how in the name of all that is good can (sic) anyone write such ungrammatical and otherwise careless sentences...' Then she proceeded to examine a sample of sentences with erroneous spelling and grammar, pointing out the errors and explaining why they are errors.
Mrs. Giuseppi correctly identifies the errors, in particular gives the correct spelling for the misspelt words, but, unfortunately, fails in her explanation of the non-spelling errors. The explanation she gives is routinely delivered by insufficiently reflective practitioners in the nation's schools, and the main reason why I intervene here publicly is that Mrs. Giuseppi enjoys too high a stature as a connoisseur of, and perfectionist in, Standard English for me to leave the explanation unchallenged.
The writers in the papers are guilty of subject-verb disagreement. Some of the tokens of their transgression occur in the following (parts of) sentences extracted from Mrs. Giuseppi's column:
1) Acting President Linda Baboolal AND her husband lightS a deya...
2) They said the PERFORMANCE of contractors ARE regularly monitored.
3) LIGHTING deyas SYMBOLIZE...
(For ease of identification, I have underlined the subjects and verbs separately and capitalized words or letters in them that are material to an understanding of the errors.)
Mrs. Giuseppi correctly points out that the verbs in the three (parts of) sentences should be respectively 'light', 'is', and 'symbolises'. But she argues that it is only a matter of number or, in other words, singular and plural. If a subject is singular, she explains, its verb must also be singular. If it is plural, then its verb must also be plural. She is wrong, obviously so.
Let me explain.
In sentence (1), the subject is composed of two persons (Linda Baboolal and her husband) and the verb the writer agrees it with is 'lightS', not 'light'. Mrs. Giuseppi regards 'light' as being plural and 'lightS' as being singular. Since the subject is plural, then the choice of verbs must be 'light'. But by that logic or rule, if the subject were the pronoun 'I', which is singular, then the verb would be 'lightS'. So that the sentence 'I lightS a deya' would be perfectly okay. But 'lightS' here is wrong in Standard English, and Mrs. Giuseppi would have no quarrel with that! It is wrong because the first PERSON SINGULAR pronoun, i.e., 'I', disallows the 's' on the verb. The notion 'PERSON', in addition to the notion 'number' (singular and plural), is crucial to a proper understanding of the matter.
Similarly, in the sentence 'You lightS a deya', the 's' on the verb is disallowed, not simply because the pronoun 'you' can be singular in its reference (it can be plural as well!), but because it is both 'second person singular' and 'second person plural', which two composite notions disallow 's' on the verb. The pronoun 'you' doesn't agree with any verb to which 's' is added, period!
But in the sentence 'He lights a deya', the 's' is good. Why? Because, in Standard English grammar, only THIRD PERSON SINGULAR subjects allow the 's' in present-tense sentences, and the pronoun 'he' is THIRD PERSON SINGULAR. So also are the pronouns 'she' and 'it' and, typically (the matter is a complex one!), nouns not bearing an added or suffixed 's'. All other persons and numbers disallow this 's'.
So the reason why the verbs in sentences (1) and (3) above are wrong is that, in the case of sentence (1), the subject is NOT third person singular and therefore cannot bear the suffix 's', and, in the case of sentence (3), the subject, 'lighting' is third person singular (rather than 'deyas', which is third person plural) and therefore requires the suffix.
In respect of sentence (2), the subject is 'performance', which is third person singular and therefore requires the suffix. The (finite) verb 'are' in the sentence derives from the infinitive verb 'to be', which has no obvious 's' suffix but rather three separate forms in the present tense - 'am', 'is', and 'are'. 'Am' agrees with the first person singular pronoun 'I'; 'is' agrees with the third person singular pronouns 'he', 'she', and 'it', as well as with, typically, nouns in the third person singular; and 'are' agrees with the rest, that is, second person singular 'you', second person plural 'you', first person plural 'we', third person plural 'they' and, typically, nouns that are third person plural.
The basic key to understanding subject-verb agreement in Standard English is that, in respect of all verbs other than the verb 'to be', the suffix 's' agrees, typically, with THIRD PERSON SINGULAR subjects and the lack of 's' agrees, typically, with ALL OTHER KINDS OF SUBJECTS. In respect of 'to be', 'am' agrees only with the pronoun 'I', 'is' typically with third person subjects, and 'are' typically with other subjects.
Like Mrs Giuseppi, teachers nationwide teach children that it is only a matter of plural verb agreeing with plural subject, and singular verb agreeing with singular subject. The typical English textbook is at the centre of the misunderstanding as it is what has shaped and continues to shape teachers' knowledge of the language. The misunderstanding is a national scandal!
The key is simple enough, but why is it that most of the people who should know better, namely teachers, don't (consciously) know it and therefore can't teach it? Why also do local newspaper (and other) writers get their verbs wrong and green even though they have been taught by Mrs. Giuseppi's rule? And why is it that perfectionists like Mrs. Giuseppi get them right and non-green even as they pass on the wrong rules?
We clearly have to return to the matter.
A misunderstanding of English grammar II
Archives / Winford James Homepage / Previous Page
^^ Back to top
