[Grammar] Subject-Verb Agreement

[Soup]

Originally Posted by 2006

If one wants to argue that they are two sides of the same thing, one can choose "is", but again to me they are two different things.
A "nonpreference" and an aversion are different.

This is good.

[Monticello]

Hi 2006,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Let's step through this point by point. Shall we?

Originally Posted by 2006

If one wants to argue that they are two sides of the same thing, one can choose "is", but again to me they are two different things.

Yes. The point that you concede here is exactly the crux of the discussion.

Originally Posted by 2006

what context?? There is no context, and none is required. We only have the words and the sentence structure that the writer used.

The context in question is clearly what you have just conceded above (highlighted in red), i.e., that one may argue that "they are two side of the same thing," and thus, "one [may] choose 'is' ". And from this argument, which is based on the aforementioned conceded context, it clearly follows that one may further reasonably argue that the writer of the sentence does in fact intend, by the use of the two words, preference and aversion, to depict to two polar extremes that are of a single phenomenon; thus -- as you yourself concede -- "two side of the same [single] thing."

Originally Posted by 2006

so you would let him use them as polar opposites even though they are not? I think one should be more accountable than that.

Once again, this is the obvious intent of meaning that the writer is conveying in this context: i.e., preference, 2. The state of being preferred. -- as opposed the polar extreme, here in this specific context -- aversion, 1. A fixed, intense dislike; repugnance. (The preceding words in question, which are blue, bolded, and italicized, are links to entries taken from the online American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition). Please click on these for reference here.) Clearly, the writer intends the reader to take away this semantic dichotomy.

Originally Posted by 2006

how conveniently you ignore the actual meanings of the words "preference" and "aversion".

Have I ignored the actual meanings? Let's see: On the one hand: The state of being preferred; then, on the other: A fixed, intense dislike. Hmmm ... , sounds like polar opposites to me.

Originally Posted by 2006

well if you believe they are polar opposites, you need to consult a dictionary.

Once again, please see the above definitions.

Originally Posted by Monticello

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.

Please note the care taken to word the above opinion as a general statement, i.e., not aimed at anyone in particular in this thread.

Originally Posted by 2006

what an inappropriate comment! The question was posed as a grammar question, specifically a 'subject verb agreement' question.

And the comment to which you object is directly related to the application of a "grammar rule," i.e., subject and verb agreement, that neglects to take into account the context and resulting semantic meaning that the writer clearly intends (and, to which you have already conceded the point) -- a single phenomenon, thus requiring the singular verb, is, for agreement. This is all about grammar. How, then, is the above general comment inappropriate?

Originally Posted by 2006

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.

Funny thing, all along I was of the mind that this, too, was my intent, i.e., "to explain why "is" or "are" should be used." And ultimately, yes, the plasticity of language given the context here is exactly what my argument is all about, i.e., given the context of the posed sentence: the preference for the singular verb form, is, and the aversion for the plural verb form, are. Is it really reasonable to assert that this argument is "irrelevant"?

[2006]

I have to keep this shorter than I planned because I am using an unfamiliar computer now, and it's driving me mad! So my response may be somewhat terse.
The only relevant factor is whether the subject is single or plural, and that is decided by the meanings of the words "preference" and "aversion".

The two words are not polar opposites; they are qualitatively different. 'intense liking/love' and "aversion" are polar opposites.

"preference" expresses a different meaning.
I can prefer sweetness over bitter/sour and still like bitter/sour, just not like it as much as I like sweetness. So my preference for sweetness and my aversion to bitter/sour are two different things period. It's a plural subject.

Everything else, like "context" and "plasticity," is irrelevant

I have nothing else to say.

[svartnik]

Originally Posted by yun

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

preference means what you choose when you eat; aversion means what you do not choose when you eat.
The context provides the real definition, not an objective dictionary.
The author is talking about a widely held opinion about tastes, which is innate.

QED

EDIT: Concerning the dichotomy between "is" and "are", an idiom entered my mind:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...9494&dict=CALD

[Monticello]

Hi 2006,

In post #10 of this thread, you have definitely recognized context as relevant:

Originally Posted by 2006

If one wants to argue that they are two sides of the same thing, one can choose "is", but again to me they are two different things.

And now you deny its relevance. Which is it?

Originally Posted by 2006

The two words are not polar opposites; they are qualitatively different. 'intense liking/love' and "aversion" are polar opposites.

Context. Context. Context.

Originally Posted by yun

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

Perhaps you will now find that the qualifier here, strong, is not forceful enough to equal your "intense." - Fine. One is certainly entitled to his or her own opinion -- no matter how unreasonable it may appear.

Originally Posted by 2006

I have nothing else to say.

When all reasonableness in a discussion is withdrawn, what else can be said?

[2006]

Monticello:

In post 10, I was bending over backwards to not prejudge the answer but to state the obvious that theoretically either "is" or "are" could be correct. But immediately upon considering the words used in the sentence in question, it became obvious that the only correct answer is "are".

My post 10 has nothing to do with "context", which is your word, and I have repeatedly said that there is no context. I think you need to familiarize yourself with the meaning of the word.

I chose the word "intense" independently; I didn't prefer it to "strong". In fact at that time my computer was acting up I couldn't even easily check the exact wording in the original post.

Your last sentence is nothing short of laughable.

You 'forced' me to break my word and say more. You can have the last word, but please don't say anything silly enough to force me to comment again.
You're fighting a losing battle. Give it a rest!

[svartnik]

Hello 2006,

Would you comment on this post, please:
http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/as...tml#post471513

Thanks. You do not have to agree with me. Show me the faults in my argument.

[2006]

Originally Posted by svartnik

preference means what you choose when you eat; aversion means what you do not choose when you eat.
The context provides the real definition, not an objective dictionary.
The author is talking about a widely held opinion about tastes, which is innate.

QED

EDIT: Concerning the dichotomy between "is" and "are", an idiom entered my mind:

Cambridge Dictionaries Online - Cambridge University Press

If you mean this post, I don't know what you are trying to say in the first sentence.
I don't agree with the second sentence. There is no context; the sentence stands on its own.
The author is not talking about opinions or tastes. (S)he is talking about a preference and an aversion.

[svartnik]

Originally Posted by yun

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

flavor or taste. They are one to me.
sweetness, bitter, sour flavors - are they not tastes?

Cambridge Dictionaries Online - Cambridge University Press

Originally Posted by 2006

The author is not primarily talking about opinions or tastes. (S)he is talking about a preference and an aversion.

preference and aversion, are they not attitudes (to flavors), in other words, opinions?

Originally Posted by 2006

There is no context; the sentence stands on its own.

The context is the whole of the sentence.

The author speaks about flavors - mainly or not mainly is irrelevant. What is it that has flavor? Food. What do we do with food? We eat it.
And now:

Originally Posted by svartnik

preference means what you choose when you eat; aversion means what you do not choose when you eat

Preference and aversion are two sides of the same "taste" coin. What is it that you do not get here? Am I missing something?

Please answer. Thanks.

[2006]

Originally Posted by svartnik

preference means what you choose when you eat; aversion means what you do not choose when you eat.
]

This is the only part I want to comment on further. I already spent far too much time on this thread.
I didn't express myself well in my last post. What I should have said is that "preference" doesn't simply mean "what you choose". "preference" expresses liking something more than something else.

"aversion" is simply a very strong dislike.

I meant to say that I didn't know why you thought that statement would be convincing to me. That statement adds nothing to your side of the 'debate' as far as I am concerned.
It's late and I'm tired, so I'm out of here.