Timeline for Correct use of is/are in a list of pronouns
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 1, 2021 at 3:12 | comment | added | 11qq00 | Here are two other strategies (besides the conventional one in above Answer which tends to roll most naturally for minimal effort) to address this shortcoming of [English ]language that occur to me: 1}Identify both possibilities with a forward-slash (similar to 'and/or'), e.g. "is/am" corresponding from "he-she-it / I". In written form this is less awkward than when spoken (though not much more-so than "and-or"). 2}Re-phrase so that the syntax of the verb agrees with any possible being[s] of the argument. E.g., "will" xor "shall" instead of "am going to". This does subtly alter the semantics. | |
| Jan 31, 2013 at 1:02 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | I agree it's a "mitigating strategy" rather than a "rule", but the fact that many people use it means we encounter the form often enough to accept it without wincing. Well, I do, most of the time. | |
| Jan 30, 2013 at 22:50 | comment | added | John Lawler | Though this is merely the most common strategy, not a grammar rule. Anything sounds bad after a disjoined sg/pl subject, if number agreement is required. Simpler to start over. Or use a modal like should, can, may, etc, which require no agreement. | |
| Jan 30, 2013 at 22:23 | history | answered | tchrist♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |