data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bb403/bb4038344b8c93e7ecb56a9e1dec17a8228e130d" alt="Bookmark and Share"
Monday, April 11, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Subject-Object Agreement? Don't Hold Your Breaths.
Here's a headline from today's New York Times:
At Particle Lab, a Tantalizing Glimpse Has Physicists Holding Their Breaths
Breaths? Really?
I've written before about subject-object agreement, like "Users who experience dizziness should call their doctor."
The bottom line is there's no right answer in most of these situations. But I bet that about 99 out of 100 editors would have made "breath" singular -- a collective concept -- in that NYT headline. " Breath" isn't usually treated as a count noun. It's more of a mass noun. And if a nation can breathe a collective sigh of relief, can't breath be as collective as sigh?
Odd choice. Not wrong, per se. Just odd.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bb403/bb4038344b8c93e7ecb56a9e1dec17a8228e130d" alt="Bookmark and Share"
At Particle Lab, a Tantalizing Glimpse Has Physicists Holding Their Breaths
Breaths? Really?
I've written before about subject-object agreement, like "Users who experience dizziness should call their doctor."
The bottom line is there's no right answer in most of these situations. But I bet that about 99 out of 100 editors would have made "breath" singular -- a collective concept -- in that NYT headline. " Breath" isn't usually treated as a count noun. It's more of a mass noun. And if a nation can breathe a collective sigh of relief, can't breath be as collective as sigh?
Odd choice. Not wrong, per se. Just odd.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bb403/bb4038344b8c93e7ecb56a9e1dec17a8228e130d" alt="Bookmark and Share"
Labels:
grammar,
new york times,
subject object agreement
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)