Timeline for Is this sentence correct? "A lot of sugar have been added to the milk."
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:55 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://ell.stackexchange.com/ with https://ell.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Feb 15, 2017 at 23:12 | comment | added | Jack M | Just replace "a lot of" with "a box of" or "a group of". | |
| Feb 15, 2017 at 23:10 | comment | added | Keith Davies | Rather than "a lot of people" you might say "many people", without changing the meaning (subject is plural, use 'have'). You are unlikely to say "many sugar" in this context, you would say "much sugar": use 'has'. Now, if several types of sugar are used then you might use "many sugars", but it doesn't seem likely in this case. | |
| Feb 15, 2017 at 22:20 | comment | added | zwol | @DCShannon Maybe the concept of "measure words" is useful here? One quart of milk, fifty head of cattle, a lot of sugar: feels like the same construction to me. | |
| Feb 15, 2017 at 22:02 | comment | added | psmears | @DCShannon: I think the (much) older meaning of "portion" is the origin of both the auction meaning and the "lots of" one - i.e. they're indirectly related, but the auction meaning isn't a direct ancestor of the "lots of" one. | |
| Feb 15, 2017 at 17:46 | history | edited | DCShannon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 369 characters in body
|
| Feb 15, 2017 at 17:40 | comment | added | DCShannon | @psmears Perhaps "original" is the wrong word. It was my understanding that that usage preceded the current "lots" usage, so maybe "previous" or "older". | |
| Feb 15, 2017 at 17:33 | comment | added | psmears | I don't think the "auction" definition of "lot" is the original one. The M-W link you give suggests the origin is OE "hlot", which basically means "portion". | |
| Feb 15, 2017 at 17:28 | comment | added | Dan Getz | @DCShannon so in your interpretation, what happens in "a lot of people"? Is "a lot" still singular? Is the verb still "has"? If not, then this answer seems to me more likely to confuse than to help. | |
| Feb 15, 2017 at 17:23 | comment | added | DCShannon | @DanGetz I think there are multiple ways to look at this that are equally valid. The main point is that they should use "has". I upvoted BillJ's answer as well, just wanted to add another interpretation. | |
| Feb 15, 2017 at 14:39 | comment | added | Dan Getz | @BillJ I agree with you; what I'm questioning is this answer and Kenneth's comments which seem to me to be saying otherwise. | |
| Feb 15, 2017 at 8:37 | comment | added | BillJ | @Shule The "lot" that we're considering is a number-transparent non-count noun and nothing at all like "box". Singular "lot" takes "a" as determiner, and is used a great many speakers. It's not used as an adjective; it's head of the NP and since it's number transparent, the whole NP takes on the number of the noun that is complement to the preposition "of". Grammatically, "box" is quite different since it is not number-transparent and hence determines the number of the NP: "A box of material/toys has just arrived". (singular verb in both cases) | |
| Feb 15, 2017 at 7:59 | comment | added | BillJ | @Dan Getz The point is that "sugar" in the OP's example is being used as a non-count noun. The same would apply to "A lot of people are ...". Of course, if it was a count noun like "cups", it would be a plural NP: "A lot of cups are ..." | |
| Feb 15, 2017 at 3:49 | comment | added | Dan Getz | For example, "a number" is also singular, but "a number of people"… | |
| Feb 15, 2017 at 3:45 | comment | added | Dan Getz | @KennethK. do you (or does someone else) have a source for "a lot of" working this way in English, when one is not speaking of actual lots? Because that just doesn't match my experience. | |
| Feb 15, 2017 at 3:23 | comment | added | Kenneth K. | @DanGetz From my memory of grammar in primary school, that is a common error in English. It doesn't matter if the phrase sounds like it is plural, what matters are the rules of grammar. The rules of grammar identify subject/verb agreement, not subject-phrase/verb agreement. A lot is one singular thing (hence the "a"). A lot of people is still just one lot. | |
| Feb 15, 2017 at 3:09 | comment | added | Dan Getz | This sounds reasonable to me until I consider examples like "a lot of people" or "a lot of cups", at which point it seems wrong. "Lot" taken as a noun should still be singular, but the whole phrase acts as plural, so something else is going on here, right? | |
| Feb 15, 2017 at 0:47 | history | answered | DCShannon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |