[Grammar] Subject-Verb Agreement

[David L.]

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

[svartnik]

Originally Posted by yun

The widely held (strong preference for sweetness and aversion to bitter or sour flavors) is innate.

My understanding is this:
What is innate? That which is widely held:
a strong liking (preference) for sweetness combined with a strong dislike (aversion) for bitter or sour flavours

Originally Posted by Soup

The preference is innate, not aversion.

Can you explain why preference is innate and its antonym is not, Soup?
Taste is innate.
taste = preference + aversion

[David L.]

My understanding is this:
What is innate? That which is widely held:
a strong liking (preference) for sweetness combined with a strong dislike (aversion) for bitter or sour flavours


What...what...what DOES that mean?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soup
The preference is innate, not aversion.
Can you explain why preference is innate and its antonym is not, Soup?
Taste is innate.
taste = preference + aversion

What a tangled mess of logic, when the literal and figurative meanings of 'taste' are confused.

Back to basics: My preference for a 42" TV does not mean, in comparison, I have an aversion for a 38" inch TV.

Soup said,"Sheesh ...". I say, SHEEEEEEEEEEEEESH.........................!"

[Monticello]

What an interesting discussion.

I, myself, don't find anything grammatically or logically "wrong" with the posed sentence:

Originally Posted by yun

The widely held strong preference for sweetness and aversion to bitter or sour flavors is innate.

By use of the singular verb, is, the writer is (obviously) expressing the idea that -- a preference coupled with an aversion -- are together a single phenomenon, two polar opposite sides of the same single coin, if you will. The writer could have chosen instead here to use the plural verb, are, but this would then express a subtle distinction, i.e., that a preference and an aversion are two uncoupled phenomena.

And whether or not one personally finds that the words preference and aversion to be technically antonyms here is really immaterial to the discussion at hand: By the context in which they have been used by the writer in the posed sentence, it is obvious that the s/he intends these to be viewed as polar opposites.

As David L. has so aptly states:

Originally Posted by David L.

CORRECT GRAMMAR IS THE SERVANT OF MEANING, NOT ITS MASTER.

[svartnik]

[QUOTE=David L.;470978]My understanding is this:
What is innate? That which is widely held:
a strong liking (preference) for sweetness combined with a strong dislike (aversion) for bitter or sour flavours

Originally Posted by David L.

What...what...what DOES that mean?

I do not like your technique for using language effectively, David.
You sound a bit casually inconsiderate, offhand, and tactless.

Back to track, this is what I meant:

Originally Posted by David L.

The...preference for sweetness is innate, as is the aversion to bitter or sour flavors.

Yes, combined was not the mot juste. I did not mean it.

Originally Posted by David L.

Back to basics: My preference for a 42" TV does not mean, in comparison, I have an aversion for a 38" inch TV.

I never thought it does.

Originally Posted by David L.

Soup said,"Sheesh ...". I say, SHEEEEEEEEEEEEESH.........................!"

[2006]

Originally Posted by David L.

Back to basics: My preference for a 42" TV does not mean, (in comparison), I have an aversion for a 38" inch TV. my ()

."

This is why it seems clear, at least to me, that the preference and the aversion are two separate things, thus requiring the plural verb "are".

[svartnik]

Originally Posted by Monticello

the writer is expressing the idea that -- a preference coupled with an aversion -- are together a single phenomenon, two polar opposite sides of the same single coin

My sentiments exactly.

[Monticello]

Originally Posted by 2006

This is why it seems clear, at least to me, that the preference and the aversion are two separate things, thus requiring the plural verb "are".

Hi 2006,

Context. Context. Context.

Language (fortunately) has the plasticity to express subtleties of thought. In the context of the posed statement --

Originally Posted by yun

The widely held strong preference for sweetness and aversion to bitter or sour flavors is innate.

-- the writer understands such plasticity, and uses it to express the idea that a "preference for sweetness and [an] aversion to bitter or sour flavors" is a single phenomenon.

Grammar "police" who pronounce such a sentence "wrong," and slap the writer with a "ticket," paradoxically confine themselves to a black-and-white world of polar opposites (i.e., either "right" or "wrong") where such subtleties of thought are verboten.

[2006]

Originally Posted by monticello

hi 2006,

context. Context. Context.
what context?? There is no context, and none is required. We only have the words and the sentence structure that the writer used.
language (fortunately) has the plasticity to express subtleties of thought. In the context of the posed statement --

-- the writer understands such plasticity, and uses it to express the idea that a "preference for sweetness and [an] aversion to bitter or sour flavors" is a single phenomenon.
how conveniently you ignore the actual meanings of the words "preference" and "aversion".

grammar "police" who pronounce such a sentence "wrong," and slap the writer with a "ticket," paradoxically confine themselves to a black-and-white world of polar opposites (i.e., either "right" or "wrong") where such subtleties of thought are
verboten.

what an inappropriate comment! The question was posed as a grammar question, specifically a 'subject verb agreement' question.
Some of us have tried to explain why "is" or "are" should be used. You have talked about irrelevant things like "plasticity" and "context", while ignoring the actual meanings of the words used.

2006

[2006]

Originally Posted by monticello

what an interesting discussion.

i, myself, don't find anything grammatically or logically "wrong" with the posed sentence:

further to my previous post...

by use of the singular verb, is, the writer is (obviously) expressing the idea that -- a preference coupled with an aversion -- are together a single phenomenon, two polar opposite sides of the same single coin, if you will. well if you believe they are polar opposites, you need to consult a dictionary. And who knows what the author actually meant. If his/her grasp of grammar is the same as the knowledge of the words' meanings, there is no telling what the writer meant to say.



the writer could have chosen instead here to use the plural verb, are, but this would then express a subtle distinction, i.e., that a preference and an aversion are two uncoupled phenomena. "a subtle distinction" is an understatement indeed!

and whether or not one personally finds that the words preference and aversion to be technically antonyms here is really immaterial to the discussion at hand: By the context again i ask, what context? in which they have been used by the writer in the posed sentence, it is obvious that the s/he intends these to be viewed as polar opposites.
so you would let him use them as polar opposites even though they are not? I think one should be more accountable than that.


[size=3[/size]

2006