Glossary entry (derived from question below)
English term or phrase:
6000 ml tumescent solution were/was infiltrated per session.
English answer:
6000 ml tumescent solution was infiltrated per session.
Added to glossary by
Michael Powers (PhD)
Jul 20, 2011 00:58
12 yrs ago
1 viewer *
English term
6000 ml tumescent solution were/was infiltrated per session.
English
Art/Literary
Linguistics
English grammar
HI everybody,
6000 ml tumescent solution were/was infiltrated per session.
I would like to know if both verbs are possible (was/were) or which is grammatically correct
Thanks
SQ
6000 ml tumescent solution were/was infiltrated per session.
I would like to know if both verbs are possible (was/were) or which is grammatically correct
Thanks
SQ
Change log
Jul 20, 2011 01:23: mediamatrix (X) changed "Language pair" from "Spanish to English" to "English"
Jul 25, 2011 14:48: Michael Powers (PhD) Created KOG entry
Jul 25, 2011 14:49: Michael Powers (PhD) changed "Field" from "Medical" to "Art/Literary"
Responses
+4
27 mins
Selected
6000 ml tumescent solution was infiltrated per session.
the subject, "solution" is singular, hence the verb must be "was"
Mike
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 days (2011-07-25 14:48:36 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
You are welcome.
Mike
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 days (2011-07-25 14:48:36 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
You are welcome.
Peer comment(s):
agree |
David Ronder
: You got it
8 hrs
|
Thank you, David - Mike
|
|
agree |
Jim Tucker (X)
: more likely
10 hrs
|
Thank you, Jim - Mike
|
|
agree |
Joshua Wolfe
: See David Ronder's discussion, which I endorse.
11 hrs
|
Thank you, Joshua - Mike
|
|
agree |
Taberne
4 days
|
Thank you, Nieves - Mike
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thanks, yes, i agree that the focus is on the solution! thanks"
+3
33 mins
6000 ml tumescent solution were infiltrated per session.
The subject, "6000 ml (of something)" is plural, hence the verb must be "were".
Peer comment(s):
agree |
Martin Riordan
11 mins
|
agree |
Charles Davis
: Undoubtedly plural; singular is wrong here
1 hr
|
agree |
David Hollywood
: agree and there we go :)
1 hr
|
agree |
Jack Doughty
5 hrs
|
disagree |
Paul Lambert
: 6000 ml is simply the measure. The solution itself is not countable.
6 hrs
|
+4
31 mins
were infiltrated
in this case we're referring to the quantity so I would say "were"
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 34 mins (2011-07-20 01:32:36 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
as this very condensed language, the main emphasis is on the quantity and that's plural so "were" IMO
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 35 mins (2011-07-20 01:33:45 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
have to admit it's ambiguous but in the context I would go for the plural
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 34 mins (2011-07-20 01:32:36 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
as this very condensed language, the main emphasis is on the quantity and that's plural so "were" IMO
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 35 mins (2011-07-20 01:33:45 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
have to admit it's ambiguous but in the context I would go for the plural
Peer comment(s):
agree |
Yasutomo Kanazawa
: Yes, just like "6000 were killed by the earthquake" where the real meaning is 6000 people, which would be plural and "were" would be used. Same logic.
2 hrs
|
thanks Yasutomo and we'll see how this one turns out :)
|
|
agree |
Shera Lyn Parpia
3 hrs
|
agree |
Thuy-PTT (X)
8 hrs
|
agree |
Phong Le
10 hrs
|
Discussion
"Fewer than two inches shorter" is just wrong, in my book. You could construct a theoretical defence of it in special circumstances, but I can't believe anyone not corrupted by half-baked grammatical theory would actually say it. It's all the fault of people telling them that they can't say "less than two", they have to say "fewer than two". They take that lesson away and misapply it.
I don't think 'were' would be completely wrong in this context, I just think 'was' is common usage and sounds better.
I would certainly say "Three quarters of the wine has been drunk". However, this is not a perfect analogy. "Three quarters" and "6000 ml" are different kinds of quantifying determiners; the former expresses a proportion of a singular noun and the latter a quantity. I would say "Two bottles of the wine were drunk". Would you say "was drunk"? What about "Two litres of the wine was drunk"? I think I would still say "were drunk", but I am less sure than with "Two bottles". Does this mean that "litres" is a quantifying determiner and "bottles" isn't? Or does it mean that a plural quantifying determiner of a singular noun may or may not call for a singular verb, depending on the type of determiner? Or am I simply losing my grip?
In the case of these 6000 ml of solution, I must honestly say that "was infiltrated" doesn't strike me as wrong, and though I don't want to decide grammatical questions by Google, I am struck by the fact that in expressions of this kind the verb is rather more often singular than plural (though it is very often plural). I think this is a more complicated question than it first appears.
Would you say, for example, "Three quarters of the wine has been drunk" or "have been drunk"? I hope the former, as the latter sounds odd in my view and would be a form of hypercorrection.