Due by class time on: Wednesday, January 26th, 2011
The responses by the whole class are due by class time on: Friday, January 28th, 2011
The text you need to read is here (just read the one page that is displayed; don't buy the article!).
____________________________________________________
by: Michelle Donegan
According to the article, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary states:
Who- what person or person, which person or persons used as an interrogative pronoun or indirect question and serving to ask for specification.
In the article Is WHO singular, the author Sylvia Chalker gives feedback on why who should always be used as singular. In the article, Sylvia Chalker based her opinion on what Geoffrey Leech believes about who being singular. Geoffrey states that who must always be singular. An example of his reasoning about who being singular he believes that a question “Who are coming to the party” is ungrammatical. In the article Sylvia discusses how Leech would rather see the word was instead of who, however singular and plural verbs could be used. An example “Who are divided by their common language? In some cases who does not seem to have a plural and only a plural reference can be used. An Example “Who are taking the parts of the three witches?” In the article Sylvia Chalker does agree that who is singular, but at the same time there are rules to grammar that must be followed, so as long as a person knows the rules for grammar, a person should be able to use who as singular the correct way.
____________________________________________________
In the short article "Is WHO always singular???" by Sylvia Chalker, she discusses whether or not it is acceptable or even more grammatically correct in certain cases to use a plural verb in relation to the word "who" in a sentence. Chalker gets the idea mainly from an article by Geoffrey Leech, in which Leech states that “who” is always singular, that it “must be singular,” and that any sentence utilizing a plural verb with the word “who” would be ungrammatical. She expands upon her disagreement with his idea in her article, and gives several examples of sentences in which she thinks that a plural verb ought to be used instead of a singular verb with "who," such as the following examples: "Who were fighting among themselves at that time," "Who inhabit those remote treeless valleys?" and "Who make the best duellists?" with a plural verb, as opposed to "Who was fighting among themselves?" "Who inhabits those remote treeless valleys?" and "Who makes the best duellists?" with a singular verb. Each of these examples are from the three different sections in her article where she gives multiple arguments, based on both semantic and contextual reasons, under which she is of the opinion that a plural verb would be better suited than a singular one. She concludes that the word "who" is not grammatically singular so much as it is "neutral or unmarked," and therefore that it is acceptable to use a plural verb with the word "who” when it is supposed to represent a plural group.
By: Lauren McCully
_______________________________________________
The summary of the article was very detailed and straight to the point at the same time. I like that you explain thoroughly what this article was about. As far as how I feel about Chalker's argument I completely agree that a plural verb is needed after "who" in some cases. Just look at the sentences listed above, who make the best duellists sounds ungrammatical without changing the make to makes. So as far as agreeing with one side of an argument or the other I choose Chalk because she does prove her point more than once within the entirety of the article.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good example of grammar that is correct, but, at least to me, grammar that just sounds weird. For example, the sentence "Who was fighting among themselves..." throws me off. More than likely I would say "Who were fighting among themselves...", while referring to more than one person. So, I agree with the article and think that using the word "who" as a plural makes sense.
ReplyDelete“Who” does not sound right when used as plural. With this being said, I can state that many people this can be an intolerable reason for “who” to only be used in the singular form. My answer or response to that is that many things in the English language do not make sense. There are always exceptions to every rule though. How sentences sound in a spoken language is very important. I think “who” is always SINGULAR because it doesn't sound right when plural. I will say that if the rule was who could be used as a singular and a plural that many people would not use it as a plural because it would not sound correct to them. Due to the sound of who as a plural many people would be confused about how to use the word and would simply use it as a singular because as many of my colleagues have stated "wing-it" and choose what sounds best to them when it comes to grammatical issues
ReplyDeleteLauren's summary of the article, Who, is a good summary and straight to the point of what the author was trying to state. In response to the article, Who, I think the word 'who' can be used wither singular or plural. If it is used as a plural in the sentence then it should definitely follow a verb that is plural. For example, "who was fighting among themselves" does not sound right at all. Instead the majority of people would use "who were fighting among themselves" because 'who' is talking about more than one person in the sentence. In conclusion, I agree with what Sylvia Chalker says in her article, Who.
ReplyDeleteLauren's summary was very detailed and interesting because I never really thought about the word "who" and whether it is used correct or not. However, I wasn't sure on what exactly Lauren or the author was trying to explain or get across to the reader. I am not the type to notice a lot especially when it comes to grammar so I liked how Lauren used examples from the article to get her point across, it helped a lot especially you didnt read the article. Maybe if she had presented examples of her own to show she understands the article herself then it would have been easier for me to understand. Overall, great summary and I applaud her because I wouldnt be able to explain such a article.
ReplyDeleteby Adrian Garcia:
ReplyDeleteI believe Michelle Donegan's summary on the article: Is WHO singular by Sylvia Chalker is a great summary. I grasped insight of what the article was about just by reading her summary. Her examples are well thought out and I like how she used the Webster's Dictionary in her summary just so we can actually know the real definition of "Who"
“Who” does not sound right when used as plural. With this being said, I can state that many people this can be an intolerable reason for “who” to only be used in the singular form. My answer or response to that is that many things in the English language do not make sense. There are always exceptions to every rule though. How sentences sound in a spoken language is very important. I think “who” is always SINGULAR because it doesn't sound right when plural. I will say that if the rule was who could be used as a singular and a plural that many people would not use it as a plural because it would not sound correct to them. Due to the sound of who as a plural many people would be confused about how to use the word and would simply use it as a singular because as many of my colleagues have stated "wing-it" and choose what sounds best to them when it comes to grammatical issues.
by Karina Enriquez:
ReplyDeleteMichelle's summary of the article, Who, is a good summary and straight to the point of what the author stated. In response to the article, Who, I think the word 'who' can be used wither singular or plural. If it is used as a plural in the sentence then it should definitely follow a verb that is plural. For example, "who was fighting among themselves" does not sound right at all. Instead the majority of people would use "who were fighting among themselves" because 'who' is talking about more than one person in the sentence. In conclusion, I agree with what Sylvia Chalker says in her article, Who.
by Joe Fleischauer:
ReplyDeletei agree with Chalker's point that "who" implies singularity and also that its plurality is ambiguous. when she uses the example "who knows the answer," it refers to anyone who knows the answer, so it is singular if only one person knows, but plural if multiple people know, making it ambiguous. it is a verb that is dependent on context to decide whether or not it is plural. it can't just be a singular verb because it is grammatical to use it as a plural.
by Nicole Hester:
ReplyDeleteI think Michelle had a clear understanding of the article, which was nice to read. She really helped put the article in perspective and left out her own opinion.
In Sylvia Chalker's article she points out how it can be awkward to use the word "who" in plural form (when it does not match up with the verb). I would say I do agree with Chalker that it is awkward, however is that reason enough to change the rules of grammar? I feel that over time all of the rules of grammar will change, it is just the cycle of things. Also Karina Enriquez made an excellent point by saying " If it is used as a plural in the sentence then it should definitely follow a verb that is plural." I agree and I would hope people would naturally make that correction(to the verb) when speaking. All and all people will always use their own way of speaking, and the rules of grammar will be broken for intentional and unintentional reasons. I think the majority of people will not want to speak in a way where they feel awkward,even if it is considered grammatically correct.
First off, I would like to say these are good examples of article summaries. After reading these summaries, I do think that the word "who" is and should be singular. I agree with Ryan who stated,"Who was fighting among themselves... throws me off." I think that it is a silly grammatical error to talk or write in the way as if "who" is plural. What would we say about the sentence, "Who are we?" As kiddish and simple as it may sound but I think things sounds better and make sense from the mouth. For the most part, I agree with Sylvia Chalker about "who" being singular.
ReplyDeleteby: Andrew Anderson
ReplyDeleteThis summary was very well written. I got a sense of what the article was saying from the examples, and ideas from the author given in the paragraph above. That being said, when I hear the word "who" in a sentence like it was used in some of the examples, it doesn't sound right to me. "Who are coming to the party?" To me that seems like "are" should be changed to is, which would make who singular. I agree with the Chalker when she says that who should be used in a singular form. I can't see where it could be used in a plural form, and still sound right and flow with the sentence.
Hello students, make sure you don't contradict yourself in your responses! "WHO" is grammatically always SINGULAR. This is the rule, and this is what Geoffrey Leech said, whose article Sylvia Chalker reviews. Ms. Chalker is AGAINST "who" being singular, and lists lots of (good) reasons why it COULD also be plural, in her opinion (but she doesn't have the power to change a grammar rule, just like you don't have it!). So, if you say you AGREE with Ms. Chalker, that means you think "WHO" should be used with plural in cases where it "sounds better" -- which is grammatically wrong.
ReplyDeleteI feel the people summarizing understood the article and relayed the information well. I have often wondered about the word who and if it was singular. This answered that question and I will be sure to remember that from now on the word should be used in a singular case when typing or speaking. I also found it very helpful that they included examples from the article to show the specific cases in which the word who will not make sense.
ReplyDeleteSo I am no longer allowed to use who as plural. So now when I say who is going to polar bear tonight? I am asking an individual and not a group of people. Okay or is that you can no longer use who in a sentence like this one anymore? So to break it down who is like he in a sentence singular.
ReplyDeleteThe summary written on the article was well written and to the point. With this said I believe that who should be used as a plural. I agree with the fact that was stated before by other classmates that using who as singular does not sound gramatically correct.
ReplyDeleteI am quite appreciated the summarize posts by Michelle Donegan and Lauren McCully. Both of them have pointed out the important idea in their blog posts. Before I have read this article and the post. I have never thought about this question "Is WHO always singular?" In my daily life, people would not always judge whether the speaker use singular or plural verb. I agree with Sylvia Chalker's argument that plural verb can be used depends on the situation. wow! From now on, I will pay more attention on my verb when I use WHO in my sentences. That's a kind of interesting thing.
ReplyDeleteOverall the summaries of the article were good. Lauren wrote a detailed and interesting summary. I liked that it was very straightforward and to the point. I dislike the point that was being made in the article though. I frequently use who in plural form and I feel as if it will be difficult to break away from my old habits.
ReplyDeleteI thought both bloggers did an excellent job in summarizing the article. By utilizing examples straight from the text, I felt like I understood the gist of the article without having first read it. The argument itself seems to be one of those situations where the grammatically correct usage isn't necessarily the one that sounds the best.
ReplyDeleteI think that both students did a good job on summarizing the article. I understood the article well from reading the two summaries, because both used examples and gave definitions.In relation to the article itself, I felt like the author, Chalker, should have included the opposing argument. Without including the other side of the argument it made Chalker seem like she was stating facts, and not her point of view.
ReplyDeleteI found Lauren summary well written with many details. I thought Michelle summary was also a great summary in explaining the article. I think both girls did a great job in completing the summaries and really took the time to summarize rather than talk about their opinions.
ReplyDeleteWithout even having to read the article in its entirety, based on the summaries provided by my fellow student, I have a very good understanding what the reading was about. I particularly liked how both students incorporated the definition within their summary, for those who were unaware. They even gave great examples to promote further understanding of the material. As for the text itself I found it somewhat ironic that the grammatically correct sentence, is the one that sounds a little weird; but that is the English language for you.
ReplyDeleteGrammar that is correct, but don’t sound correct is hard to pick up. Especially the word "who" in a sentence like it was used in some of the examples. But overall the reviews written by Michelle Donegan and Lauren McCully I thought were very good and even helped me understand the usage of “who” better.
ReplyDeleteChalker's article, "Is WHO really singular," expresses how WHO is used correctly, depending on the verb which follows. The word, who, relies on its verb's singular or plural usage. The exception lies with an unmarked verb. Usually the sentence will then begin with "Who"
ReplyDeleteThinking about this, I do not believe "who" is a word that sounds grammatically correct in the plural form. The article shows the different ways WHO is used. I believe the summaries of the articles were very accurate and provided good information. The article as a whole was very easy to understand and I was able to learn a few things from it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with “who” being singular. A few exceptions occur though. The exceptions include: who, the ghost or the witch are playing nasty tricks.” However, if the sentence did not include the subjects (ghost and witch) the who would sound better as well as be grammatically correct. The grammar rules imply that the subject and verb need to be equal in number.
ReplyDeleteThe summaries for this article were well written and detailed. Her article was very easy to read and her examples from the Webster’s dictionary made it interesting. I agree with the argument made by Chalker; a plural verb is very important and needs to come after “who” in some instances. Most people find that in doing this it makes the sentences sounds weird, but that is because most people are so used to hearing and using it the wrong way. I agree with what Chalker has said in her article.
ReplyDelete