0

This is a sentence in the paper “Fractional angular momentum and anyon statistics of impurities in Laughlin liquids”, by Tobias Graß, Bruno Juliá-Díaz, Niccolò Baldelli, Utso Bhattacharya, and Maciej Lewenstein. It’s the second sentence from the Introduction section.

Introduction When quasiparticles emerge from strongly correlated quantum matter, their properties can be quite different from those of the matter particles. A paradigm are bulk excitations in fractional quantum Hall (FQH) liquids: The liquid is made of interacting electrons, but its excitations appear as fractional electrons, having fractional charge, fractional angular momentum, and fractional exchange statistics [1–4].

I am confused. Shouldn’t are be replaced with is?

With singular is, it agrees with its subject, a paradigm. But with plural are, it instead agrees with its subject complement, bulk excitations.

Which way to choose?

The Wikipedia article linked to above claims that:

A plural or singular subject, rather than a subject complement determines the grammatical number expressed by a copula.

Yet here the authors have chosen to have the copular verb be agree with the plural predicative nominal in its its subject complement instead of with its singular subject. Why? What special grammatical rule are they following that allows this to be grammatical rather than an error?

Improve this question
6
  • 2
    I can't add an answer anymore since the question is closed (I edited it to include a block quote from the paper based on your link, btw) so here's my answer: I think you're right, and it should be changed to a paradigm is or perhaps a paradigm example is (although some might feel that's redundant). Even though this would mean the verb is singular while the object is plural, a phenomenon can be referred to by many instances of it occurring, like this, so that's not as big of a problem as the subject not agreeing with the verb.
    – Wyatt Carpenter
    Commented Nov 30 at 8:46
  • 1
    @WyattCarpenter the question is reopened, you can post your answer now :)
    – Mari-Lou A
    Commented Nov 30 at 9:32
  • @StuartF This answer cites a reputable source that observes that in informal styles, speakers sometimes choose the copula's complement instead of its subject for agreement.
    – tchrist ♦
    Commented Nov 30 at 16:55
  • 2
    There's the possibility of the Comp–V꜀ₒₚ–Sub inverse copular construction. 'Even more of an enigma are the 2,501 candidates running as individuals for the remaining 120 seats.' [Libya Herald]. / 'Your lord and master am I.' But rare outside the literary domain, and sounding frightful in the example in the paper.
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Commented Nov 30 at 19:26
  • 1
    People sometimes write ungrammatical things for all kinds of reasons and often people don't mind or notice. Often with verb agreement they pick whatever noun is closest regardless of its grammatical role. I still don't see any reason to believe this is grammatical in formal contexts, or anything other than a mistake.
    – Stuart F
    Commented Dec 1 at 19:53

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

In the paper you've linked to (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.13504), the first two sentences of the abstract are:

When quasiparticles emerge from strongly correlated quantum matter, their properties can be quite different from those of the matter particles. A paradigm are bulk excitations in fractional quantum Hall (FQH) liquids: The liquid is made of interacting elec- trons, but its excitations appear as fractional electrons, having fractional charge, fractional angular momentum, and fractional exchange statistics [1–4].

I think you're right, and it should be changed to a paradigm is or perhaps a paradigm example is (although some might feel that's redundant). Even though this would mean the verb is singular while the object is plural, a phenomenon can be referred to by instances of it occurring, so that's not as big of a problem as the other way around.

Improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .