Is or Are

Status
Not open for further replies.

jack

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
All of you are equally guilty. <--why is "are" not "is"?

All of the lake is out of bounds. <--why is "is" not "are"? and why is "bounds" not "bound"?
 

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
jack said:
All of you are equally guilty. <--why is "are" not "is"?

All of the lake is out of bounds. <--why is "is" not "are"? and why is "bounds" not "bound"?

All is one of those strange pronouns that does not indicate number by itself. In other words, it is not, by its nature, always singular or always plural.

In the first sentence, it refers to more than one individual and has a plural sense.

In the second, it refers to the "entirety" of a single thing, and has a singular sense.
 

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
jack said:
All of the lake is out of bounds. <--why is "bounds" plural?

In this use, "bounds" means "boundaries". This use of "bounds" is always plural.
 

jack

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
"Unless there are some new evidence." <--correct? Does "some" make "new evidence" plural? What is the subject and verb in this sentence?
"Unless there is some new evidence." <--incorrect?
 

Tdol

Editor, UsingEnglish.com
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
Evidence is usually uncountable, so 'is' would be correct. Somepeople use it in the plural, but that be 'some evidences are'. However, many speakers don't like this form.;-)
 

jack

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
"There are no cars down here." <--what does this mean?
"There is no car down here." <--meaning? There is not even one car down here?
 

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
jack said:
"There are no cars down here." <--what does this mean?
"There is no car down here." <--meaning? There is not even one car down here?

I'd use,

There aren't /are not any cars down here.
There isn't / is not a car down here.

'not' is an adverb; when applied to the verb BE (i.e., is, are, am, etc), which means, exist, it serves to negate the verb BE, the existence of the car(s). :wink:
 

jack

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
Thanks.

There aren't /are not any cars down here. <--what does this mean?

There isn't / is not a car down here. <--so this means, not even one car down here?
 

jack

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
What's the difference in meaing between these two:

1. Are there any people here?
2. Is anyone here?
How would I use these questions? Can you give me an example? Thanks.
 

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
jack said:
What's the difference in meaing between these two:

1. Are there any people here?
2. Is anyone here?
How would I use these questions? Can you give me an example? Thanks.

A. Is there anyone here? ('anyone' refers to people/any one person)
B. Are there any people here? (as opposed to, say, animals)

All the best, :D
 

jack

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
What's the difference in meaing between these ones? Can you give me an exmple how to use them?

1. There are no lives lost.
2. There is no life lost.
 

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
jack said:
What's the difference in meaing between these ones? Can you give me an exmple how to use them?

1. There are no lives lost.
2. There is no life lost.

1. makes reference to individuals, each life times X people = lives, and 2. makes reference to one life or life in general.

All the best, :D
 

jack

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
1. There are no lives lost.
2. There is no life lost.
So it doesn't matter which one I use?

What about this? Does it matter which one I use to ask a question?
3. Are there any lives lost?
4. Is there any life lost?
What do these mean?
 

Francois

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
There is only one police (department) at Seattle, so the first one is correct. One might imagine some context to make 2) work, but as a rule it is wrong.

FRC
 

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
Francois said:
There is only one police (department) at Seattle, so the first one is correct. One might imagine some context to make 2) work, but as a rule it is wrong.

FRC

Try,

in Seattle :wink:

All the best, :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top