My forum member calls me ignorant and stupid when I defended Caitlyn Jenner's transfo

[B45]

My forum member calls me ignorant and stupid when I defended Caitlyn Jenner's transformation. I say:

What does my character and intelligence have to do with anything?

Why is it does and not do? Is it because does is aiding my and not character and intelligence?

 

[MikeNewYork]

I would use "do".

 

[B45]

Would you say does is ungrammatical?

 

[MikeNewYork]

For me, it does not match the subject in number, but I suspect many people would use it.

 

[B45]

If it doesn't match the subject in number than it's grammatically wrong. Would native speakers use it as well?

 

[MikeNewYork]

Yes, I believe they would. Native speakers don't always go by the book. You need "then" instead of "than".

 

[B45]

Yes, I believe they would. Native speakers don't always go by the book. You need "then" instead of "than".

If it doesn't match the subject in number then it's grammatically wrong.

I guess native speakers would use the singular instead of the plural when the subjects not as different or I don't know what the case is..? But still doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of having grammar altogether?

 

[MikeNewYork]

Subject-verb agreement is not set in stone and does not determine the entirety of grammar.

 

[B45]

I understand that it doesn't represent all of grammar but what's the point of having rules if even native speakers don't follow it?

So, my question is simply this - is the underlined sentence grammatical?

What does my character and intelligence have to do with anything?

 

[MikeNewYork]

Asked and answered.

 

[B45]

So, why can't I just say this from now on -

What's the point of rules if people doesn't follow them.

or

That guy over there have a gun!

or

Even native speakers doesn't follow grammar rules.

 

[MikeNewYork]

You can say whatever you like. That has nothing to do with me.

 

[B45]

Yes, I understand what you mean but as a native English speaker don't you feel like proper grammar and good English should be preserved?

 

[Skrej]

The thing about languages is that they constantly change. One can rail against a particular change all one wants, but once something becomes widely used and accepted there isn't much to be done to prevent it.

Native speakers of a language have the freedom to change the language as they see fit. You may get corrected by other native speakers, or they may adopt your usage.

Probably the reason some people would say 'what does' instead of 'what do', is that it isn't as clearly wrong as 'that guy have a gun'. Since it's a compound subject, it isn't as blatantly wrong to the ear. That second subject is spaced out enough it's easy to miss the subject verb agreement, whereas a singular subject is immediately noticeable.

I know I've caught myself making the same mistake, even as a native speaker.

 

[MikeNewYork]

And some people may view the compound subject as a unit. One cannot legislate usage.

 

[Skrej]

Well, the French try to....

 

[MikeNewYork]

Yes.

 

[Roman55]

I am not a teacher.


I agree with the explanations given above.


Another factor to consider is, that when speaking, the entirety of the sentence is rarely fully planned in advance. You could start a sentence with the intention of saying, 'What does my character have to do with anything?' and as you're saying it you add, 'and intelligence'. This is quite common. The same person putting it in writing would probably make the verb agree in number with the subject.

 

[Barb_D]

I'm more interested in why "character" is included in that sentence. Ignorance and IQ are not character issues, unless a person stays willfully ignorant and refuses to consider facts in evidence.

 

[Skrej]

I would guess that the character reference was made as slight or insult against the person's beliefs.

If somebody was against a particular lifestyle or orientation and was offended by someone else admiring or defending that lifestyle/orientation, then they'd likely insult their intelligence as well as question their character. The insinuation being that they too must pursue that lifestyle since they're admiring or defending that person.

If you don't like or believe in something, then it's pretty common to declare that anybody supporting it must have a character flaw.

Not necessarily saying it's good logic, just something that's commonly done.