[Grammar] is or are

[alexka]

do we use is or are in the following statment:
the latest series of articles is/are being published in the newspaper.

 

[Barb_D]

I would say that the series... is.

However, if you think of the word series as a quantifier (a number of, several), you could use are.

 

[Pedroski]

I remember a similar question a good while ago. I did my best to argue for 'is', but Raymott was right, and both are possible. In fact the sentence is ambiguous. It is not clear what the subject is, hence it is hard to say whether to use 'is' or 'are'.

The latest series of articles is/are being published in the newspaper.

The latest series is being published in the newspaper. 'series' is a singular noun.

The latest articles are being published in the newspaper. 'articles' is a plural noun

'of articles' is a possessive descriptor, a kind of adjective. It is possible to write 'the series's articles' cf 'John's articles'.

The latest series's articles are being published in the newspaper.

So if you read 'series of' equivalent to 'series's', then articles is the noun, and you would use 'are'.

If you read 'of articles' as a postnomial possessive adjective, then 'series' is the noun, and you would use 'is'.
Cf
'Alaska is snowy' 'The mountains of Alaska are snowy.' 'is' would not be good here.

'Weapons are not permitted.' 'The use of these weapons is not permitted.' 'are' would not be good here.

 

[2006]

I vote for "is".

 

[lauralie2]

I also vote "is". "Series" is a collective noun (i.e., the series is; several series are).

 

[Pedroski]

for LOG 29 next May a series of articles are being published

a detailed series of articles are being published in BioCycle,

Commencing 5 May 2008, a series of articles are being published on the Liberal Studies editorial

Over the coming months a series of articles are being published including

The series of articles are being published on the NeSS analysis and guidance pages.

 

[5jj]

for LOG 29 next May a series of articles are being published

a detailed series of articles are being published in BioCycle,

Commencing 5 May 2008, a series of articles are being published on the Liberal Studies editorial

Over the coming months a series of articles are being published including

The series of articles are being published on the NeSS analysis and guidance pages.

A useful set of examples with are. Are they from published sources?
They would be equally acceptable with is - I prefer is, but have learnt to live with are these days.

 

[Pedroski]

All just taken off the net.

The problem is, there is no rule which tells us unequivocally what the subject is here. So some people choose 'series is' while others use 'articles are'. In fact there is no definition of 'subject' which is watertight and applicable to all situations.

 

[2006]

All just taken off the net.

The problem is, there is no rule which tells us unequivocally what the subject is here. So some people choose 'series is' while others use 'articles are'. In fact there is no definition of 'subject' which is watertight and applicable to all situations.

You speak of "The problem", but one problem is that some seem to take unreasonable licence in using 'are'.

An example is a sentence like 'Manchester United are not playing well today.'
Manchester United, a football team, is clearly an it, so 'is' would be correct. But those who would utter that sentence say that they are obviously referring to the team's players.

In response, I say don't be lazy. If you mean the players, say so. Saying ''Manchester United are..." to indicate you are talking about the players amounts to turning things upside down. Instead of using the correct subject initially, the wrong verb is used to indicate what the subject is supposed to be.

 

[2006]

All just taken off the net.

The problem is, there is no rule which tells us unequivocally what the subject is here. So some people choose 'series is' while others use 'articles are'. In fact there is no definition of 'subject' which is watertight and applicable to all situations.

I think there is a widely accepted rule that in the sentence '(The)(That)(This)(These)(Tthose) X of Y......', X is the subject and determines what the correct verb is.

This bunch of grapes is rotten.
Those two bunches (of grapes) are okay.

 

[5jj]

You speak of "The problem", but one problem is that some seem to take unreasonable licence in using 'are'.

An example is a sentence like 'Manchester United are not playing well today.'
Manchester United, a football team, is clearly an it, so 'is' would be correct. But those who would utter that sentence say that they are obviously referring to the team's players.

In response, I say don't be lazy. If you mean the players, say so. Saying ''Manchester United are..." to indicate you are talking about the players amounts to turning things upside down. Instead of using the correct subject initially, the wrong verb is used to indicate what the subject is supposed to be.

It's not 'unreasonable licence'. In BrE it has long been accepted that collective nouns may govern a singular or plural verb. This is not lazy or wrong; it's the way the language works. Speakers of AmE tend to go for the singular verb.

 

[2006]

It's not 'unreasonable licence'. In BrE it has long been accepted that collective nouns may govern a singular or plural verb. This is not lazy or wrong; it's the way the language works. Speakers of AmE tend to go for the singular verb. And I would say that makes more sense. It seems more logical.
Anyway, we disagree on this topic.

2006

 

[Pedroski]

I don't think there is reason to disagree. In the end, English is what English speakers say. You can attempt to proscribe, but it will be a Sisyphus ball roll.

The band is leaving.
The band are splitting up.

The ideas that flash through your mind at the moment of speaking will determine your choice.

 

[2006]

I don't think there is reason to disagree. In the end, English is what English speakers say. You can attempt to proscribe, but it will be a Sisyphus ball roll.
Native speakers will continue to say what they say. But I have previously expressed my opinion that ideally a language would be as logical as possible. This would be especially helpful in teaching and learning the language.

When there are differences between British English and North American English, many students will want to focus on one of these kinds of English.

1) The band is leaving. This is what North Americans usually say. But if one says 'The band are leaving.", that will be recognized as British English, meaning the band members are leaving,

2) The band are splitting up. To me, this sentence is illogical, and it would be hard to explain it's use to an inquisitive student.
By using "are", the sentence is saying that the band members individually are splitting themselves up. How is that possible?
Sentence 2 doesn't mean that the band is splitting up, even though that is what it presumably wants to mean..

The ideas that flash through your mind at the moment of speaking will determine your choice. Hopefully those ideas have a logical basis.

2006

 

[5jj]

2006:"Native speakers will continue to say what they say. But I have previously expressed my opinion that ideally a language would be as logical as possible. This would be especially helpful in teaching and learning the language."

It would be, but it won't happen. Many parts of language are not logical - and that's part of the fun of it.


2006: "2. The band are splitting up. To me, this sentence is illogical, and it would be hard to explain it's use to an inquisitive student.
By using "are", the sentence is saying that the band members individually are splitting themselves up. How is that possible?
Sentence 2 doesn't mean that the band is splitting up, even though that is what it presumably wants to mean.."

Native speakers know what is meant. The fact that you find it illogical is unfortunate for you, but doesn't affect the language. I haven't found it hard to explain to students, because I present English as a language, not an abstract system of logic.

2006: The ideas that flash through your mind at the moment of speaking will determine your choice. Hopefully those ideas have a logical basis.

You may hope, but there is no reason why it should happen.

 

[Pokemon]

<i> Many parts of language are not logical - and that's part of the fun of it.

I disagree with that. Our failing to get to the core of the problem and explain things doesn't mean that language is illogical. It means that we are not logical enough to understand its logic.

 

[2006]

2006:"Native speakers will continue to say what they say. But I have previously expressed my opinion that ideally a language would be as logical as possible. This would be especially helpful in teaching and learning the language."

It would be, but it won't happen. Many parts of language are not logical - and that's part of the fun of it. Aside from irony, sarcasm, idioms,etc, there is no good reason a language should not be logical. Since a language obviously is for communication, the more clearly and correctly sentences express the intended meaning, the better the language is.

Native speakers know what is meant. The fact that you find it illogical is unfortunate for you, but doesn't affect the language. I haven't found it hard to explain to students, because I present English as a language, Well 'your language' has sentences that mean what they say and sentences that don't mean what they say. The logical extension of that is that given enough such sentences, you will spend a lot of time indicating which sentences are which. And students will be sending you lists of sentences, wanting to know which mean what they say and which don't.

not an abstract system of logic.
You are being silly! No one thinks language is or should be that.
2006: The ideas that flash through your mind at the moment of speaking will determine your choice. Hopefully those ideas have a logical basis.

You may hope, but there is no reason why it should happen. Do you really believe that?

2006

 

[5jj]

2006:Since a language obviously is for communication, the more clearly and correctly sentences express the intended meaning, the better the language is.
5jj: If by ‘the language’ you mean ‘the language used by the speaker/writer’, then I agree, at least as far as ‘clearly’ is concerned; ‘correctly’ is often a matter of subjective opinion. Let’s go back to something you wrote earlier:

2006: "2. The band are splitting up. To me, this sentence is illogical, and it would be hard to explain its use to an inquisitive student. By using "are", the sentence is saying that the band members individually are splitting themselves up. How is that possible?
Sentence 2 doesn't mean that the band is splitting up, even though that is what it presumably wants to mean."
5jj: The words I have underlined are simply not true. Any native speaker of BrE who uttered those words would be talking about a situation in which the members of a band had decided not to work together any more; any native speaker of BrE who heard his utterance would understand this. This sentence does mean the same as ‘the band is splitting up’.

If one takes a Formal Logic approach to English, then one can claim that most utterances are illogical. Take: “I am 64,” for example. Logically, I am not ‘64’. I am fivejedjon, I am a retired teacher, I have lived on this earth for 64 years, but I am not 64 in the sense “I = 64”

2006: Well 'your language' has sentences that mean what they say and sentences that don't mean what they say. The logical extension of that is that given enough such sentences, you will spend a lot of time indicating which sentences are which. And students will be sending you lists of sentences, wanting to know which mean what they say and which don't.
5jj:My students are not as obtuse as that, and I don’t think many students are. They know that in their own languages words are used all the time in ways of which a formal logician might not approve. In the band utterance, the students need to know what a band is, and what splitting up signifies.Once they know this, most will understand the utterance moderately easily. Not many balanced people, even learners (!), are seriously going to form a picture in their minds of the individual members of the band splitting themselves up. Of course, a good teacher will point out, by modelling or explanation, that collective nouns in BrE can govern a singular or plural verb. End of problem, if there ever was a problem.

2006: (5jjnot an abstract system of logic.
You are being silly! No one thinks language is or should be that.
5jj: You seem to be heading in that direction. If you are not, why all the fuss about a construction that is natural in BrE?

2006: (5jjThe ideas that flash through your mind at the moment of speaking will determine your choice. Hopefully those ideas have a logical basis.
5jj: Assuming the speaker is capable of logical thought, I agree. But that does not mean that the words will come out in a way that will please a formal logician. In serious writing and formal speaking most of us work to ensure that our thoughts are expressed clearly and unambiguously. In normal conversation, the context makes things clear. One final example;

Luke: Would you like a hamburger?
Emma: I’m a vegetarian.

Emma’s response, to a logician, does not answer Luke’s question. In real life it does.

 

[2006]

2006:Since a language obviously is for communication, the more clearly and correctly sentences express the intended meaning, the better the language is.
5jj: If by ‘the language’ you mean ‘the language used by the speaker/writer’, then I agree, at least as far as ‘clearly’ is concerned; ‘correctly’ is often a matter of subjective opinion. In our context, I don't agree.

2006: "2. . By using "are", the sentence is saying that the band members individually are splitting themselves up. How is that possible?
Sentence 2 doesn't mean that the band is splitting up, even though that is what it presumably wants to mean."
5jj: The words I have underlined are simply not true. Any native speaker of BrE who uttered those words would be talking about a situation in which the members of a band had decided not to work together any more; any native speaker of BrE who heard his utterance would understand this. This sentence does mean the same as ‘the band is splitting up’. That is only because it has been arbitrarily decided that that is what the sentence will be taken to mean.

If one takes a Formal Logic approach to English, then one can claim that most utterances are illogical. Take: “I am 64,” for example. Logically, I am not ‘64’. I am fivejedjon, I am a retired teacher, I have lived on this earth for 64 years, but I am not 64 in the sense “I = 64” Your comment here is totally irrelevant. This is a completely different issue, one of omitting words that are clearly understood to be present.

5jj:My students are not as obtuse as that, and I don’t think many students are. They know that in their own languages words are used all the time in ways of which a formal logician might not approve. Our discussion has nothing to do with formal logicians! In the band utterance, the students need to know what a band is, and what splitting up signifies.Once they know this, most will understand the utterance moderately easily. Not many balanced people, even learners (!), are seriously going to form a picture in their minds of the individual members of the band splitting themselves up. That is not the point. All I am saying is that a sentence that directly expresses the intended meaning is a better sentence than one that really says one thing but has to be understood to mean something else. .

Of course, a good teacher will point out, by modelling or explanation, that collective nouns in BrE can govern a singular or plural verb. End of problem, if there ever was a problem.
The problem is that there is a better sentence: "The band is splitting up."
2006: (5jjnot an abstract system of logic.
You are being silly! No one thinks language is or should be that.
5jj: You seem to be heading in that direction. No, I am not. We are just discussing an aspect the English language.

If you are not, why all the fuss about a construction that is natural in BrE? Being natural or not in BrE is not the point. We are discussing the relative merits of two sentences.

2006: (5jjThe ideas that flash through your mind at the moment of speaking will determine your choice. Hopefully those ideas have a logical basis.
5jj: Assuming the speaker is capable of logical thought, I agree. I assume most people are capable of logical thought. But that does not mean that the words will come out in a way that will please a formal logician. In serious writing and formal speaking most of us work to ensure that our thoughts are expressed clearly and unambiguously. In normal conversation, the context makes things clear. One final example;

Luke: Would you like a hamburger?
Emma: I’m a vegetarian.

Emma’s response, to a logician, does not answer Luke’s question. Yes it clearly does, even though the answer is indirect. And that example has no relevance to our two "band" sentences.

I hope to have nothing more to say on this thread.

2006

 

[5jj]

2006: I hope to have nothing more to say on this thread.

5jj: I'd better shut up then. ;-)