Grammar question
 

I turn to the Sphere’s collective know-how once again to solve a grammar question.

In a translation I’m workshopping now, there is this phrase:

To sigh my anguish and to cry my ache
consume my heart . . .

Should the verb “consume” be singular or plural?

There are differing opinions about it in the translation thread, some saying “to sigh” and “to cry” are separate actions that should not be treated as a unit, others saying that it is a single action made up of two elements.

My “instinct” would be to use the singular there, but that could just be my lousy education.

Does anyone know if there’s a proper grammatical rule for this sort of thing?

Andrew,

I don't know what the rule is here, but I can tell you that if "consume" is meant to be immediately and clearly recognized by the reader as a verb whose subject is the previous line, as opposed to a third verb in a list, "consumes" works better. Essentially, it sounds better. IMO.

David R.

I think the common rule states that when you have two items joined by the conjunction and the verb must be plural in order to have correct subject/verb agreement.

Sighing consumes my heart.

Sighing and crying consume my heart.

Therefore, in the example you give, the verb consume is the correct choice.

David and Richard, your takes on this are exactly the ones I’ve gone back and forth about--on one hand “consumes” sounds more natural, on the other hand, logically it seems that “consume” would be correct. When Richard rephrases it using the gerunds the choice is crystal clear, but with the infinitives it sounds different, and I’m not sure why that is other than maybe unconscious speech habits.

That reminds me, peanut butter and jelly are my favorite kind of sandwich. (Editing in -- Sorry, Richard, not trying to be cute, I guess my smartass impulse took over for a minute.)

To say "To sigh my anguish and to cry my ache" is a noun phrase equivalent to "peanut butter and jelly" may be a stretch, but that is what poetic license is for. I think it gives Andrew enough leeway to do what sounds best.

David R.

Moreover:

To cut and run is a coward's game. (Also: Cutting and Running is a coward's game.)

To have and to hold was the vow they made.

I dunno, Andrew, I think you can do what you want in this case.

David R.

Andrew:

Two actions consume my heart.

HTH,

Colin

Definitely singular. "It sounds right" is one of the best arguments I know. But, to rationalise, if the two subjects constitute a whole then the singular should be used.

Duncan

Andrew:

You never learn any grammar if mortui vivos docent. Those mortui make it so dull.

Mike

I'm relieved to see a vote for the singular here. Doubt and anxiety had been consuming my heart (plurally).

Andrew, it's a collective subject acting singly as you show it here. In other words, to sigh doesn't consume my heart all by itself and to cry doesn't either; it is the act of sighing and crying that consumes it. Does the text really say that? I'm hoping for a free translation. :D

Here's an example: Getting up in the morning and walking the dog consumes all my energy. By the time I finish with that I'm ready to go back to bed.

Carol

This is from Harper’s English Grammar by John B. Opdycke, p.203.

Quote:
Singular nouns and pronouns connected by and in a compound subject require a plural predicate, for the predicate must agree with them jointly; thus, Rain and snow have fallen heavily today. This rule does not hold in firm names that themselves denote a single organization as in Johnson and Johnson has placed a new paste on the market and Rogers and Peet has opened a new branch. And it does not hold in case nouns are so closely connected as to be regarded as one, as in My bread and board is paid for and My bread and butter tastes good and Wind and storm has wrought havoc, though there is much good usage to justify plural predication with these and similar subjects.

In the above quotation the author points out that some compound subjects can be treated as a unit, “as one”, and take a singular verb form. “Wind and storm”, for example, are so closely related that they can take the verb “has”. Though at the end he seems to be saying that many people would apply a plural verb form no matter what, and that wouldn’t necessarily be wrong.

I myself pretty much use Opdycke’s reasoning. In Andrew’s sentence, however, I felt he was making the actions very distinct by using the word “to” in front of both “sigh” and “cry” and by further describing the actions with anguish and ache respectively. He makes the actions sound distinct and separate from each other even though they are closely related and can be done at one and the same time. For that reason, I suggested that he use “consume”, not “consumes”.

Petra, most likely the infinitive should be translated to English as a gerund, crying and sighing.

Carol

A writer may certainly choose to ignore the standard and accepted rules of grammar, but doing so doesn't validate that choice. Carol and Petra present the case accurately. The standard rule is simple: subjects joined by and are plural and take a plural verb. If, however, the items in a compound subject are thought of as one thing, the verb is singular.

In David's examples (peanut butter and jelly, cut and run, etc.) the items are clearly considered one thing, therefore a singular verb is required.

Since the example you give is a translation, it's difficult to know how the expression is used in the original language. And that's the key question you need to address: Is that expression in the original viewed as two items or one?

Furthermore, the "it sounds right" argument advanced by some is really silly. An awful lot of poor speaking and poor writing "sounds right" because of long and incorrect usage. And just as silly is taking a vote on the matter. If writers break a standard rule of grammar and usage, they should do so by choice and for a purpose, not by accident or ignorance.

Richard

Carol, yes, there's no doubt that it sounds more natural to say sighing and crying. I don't know why Andrew used the infinitives, but I'm guessing it's partly, if not wholly, a metrical decision. Still, you could argue that it suits the Dante poem (the tone, the style) to use the infinitives.

I have to say that if Andrew had written "Sighing my anguish and crying my ache..." I would still opt for the plural verb form "consume", because he uses anguish with one action and ache with the other, which makes them sound more specific and distinct from each other. Emphasis on "SOUND LIKE" there, because of course anguish and ache are rather similar to each other in reality. But the bottom line is: when in doubt, use the plural form." Then nobody can say you're making a unit of something that isn't a unit.

Bingo, Richard. In some languages the infinitive serves as both infinitive (root verb) and noun (gerund). Using the infinitive in English here doesn't make much sense. In idiomatic English we wouldn't say "to cry consumes my heart." We might say "the urge to cry consumes my heart" or "the desire to cry consumes my heart" but not "to cry consumes..." We'd say "crying consumes."

This is the kind of distinction a computer translation program might overlook but a translator should not: what is perfectly correct in the source language (infinite as noun) being translated into awkward or incorrect usage in the target language (infinitive as root verb).

Carol

Actually, Carol, while we're at it, I wouldn't mind clarification on that point too. I can assure you that I know that the infinitive as a noun in Italian doesn't translate to the same in English. And I did not choose the infinitives for purely metrical reasons, as Petra supposes. I liked the sound of it better that way, it felt stronger and more forceful.

Is it really incorrect to do that in English? It doesn't sound so weird to me.

Dante does use the singular verb by the way, but that's neither here nor there for the English version.

I still prefer singular "consumes" for the reasons the pro-consumes people have been saying.

It doesn't sound weird to me either. A quick Google of "infinitive as nouns" produced many pages offering many examples of infinitives used t he way Andrew has used them here. To use infinitives as a noun is a time honored tradition.

It's the sort of clue that makes me wonder if English is the writer's first language. I don't know if this particular usage could be called incorrect, but it isn't idiomatic. If you are going for a strong, forceful tone shouldn't the passage be as formally correct in English as it is in Italian?

Of the two issues in front of you, I think the register is probably more significant than which verb form you choose here.

Carol

Roger, didn't most or all of the examples you found pair the infinitive-as-noun construction with a form of the "to be" verb? "To walk is my favorite exercise" sounds fine. "To walk makes my heel hurt," not so much.

Carol

Usage changes and evolves. If it is "long" enough it ceases to be "incorrect." I know, I know, that is a point of controversy, but I think the "it sounds good" ("good" by the way, not necessarily "right") is valid if (a) there is enough wiggle room, even a teensy bit, AND (b) it is poetry.

David R.

Andrew,

Are we voting? If we're voting, I vote for 'consumes.'

On the other hand, if there's a 'right answer,' I have no idea what it is. ;)

Thanks,

Bill

Yes, and if the people it "sounds good" to are the likes of Andrew Frisardi and other distinguished Erato company, it's hard to dismiss their impressions as irrelevant. One must at least ask why educated, native speakers who are extremely verbal, gifted writers, and lovers of proper language, have the impression they have, because those are the very people whose ears will govern the creation of future rules and conventions.

Carol, I agree that the infinitive as a noun seems best suited, when it's the subject of a sentence, when the verb is "to be" verb, but I'm not sure I'd limit it to that verb entirely. And, of course, when it is not the subject of a sentence, the infinitive is more common. "I love to eat" is just as idiomatic as "I love eating," for example.

Yes, and if the people it "sounds good" to are the likes of Andrew Frisardi and other distinguished Erato company, it's hard to dismiss their impressions as irrelevant. One must at least ask why educated, native speakers who are extremely verbal, gifted writers, and lovers of proper language, have the impression they have, because those are the very people whose ears will govern the creation of future rules and conventions.

Well, you can ask "why", but the truth is that extremely distinguished, exceptionally learned and intelligent writers make mistakes from time to time just like everyone else does. That's one of the reasons there are copy editors at publishing companies.

"Mistakes," yes, but when the issue is brought to their attention and they disagree with the copy editors, it's not a "mistake" but a disagreement, and they often get to make the final call.

Why is it suddenly not a mistake, but a disagreement? Is it because the writer is "distinguished"? I once read an article (might have been an obit) about a copy editor at the New Yorker. Worked there a long time and was both feared and respected. A writer could apparently take up an issue with her, but she wouldn't budge an inch if she knew the writer was wrong. Good copy editors put the text first, the writer second.

David:

Yes, language is fluid. It changes and evolves. And that's a beautiful although at times troubling matter for the users of language. In Elizabethan England, the use of double superlatives was apparently acceptable English usage, as is evidenced in Shakespeare's well-known line from Julius Caesar: "This was the most unkindest cut of all." But who among us would use such a double superlative today? And would anyone participating in this discussion, when wishing to speak or write correctly, say I've drank a lot of French wine or They have went to California on vacation? Perhaps that usage will eventually become standard. But it certainly isn't considered standard now. For the most part, don't we have to paddle about in the language pond of our own time and place?

I think we can all agree that at any particular time there are various levels of usage available: standard and nonstandard, formal and informal, colloquial and literary, and so forth. And all these forms and levels of language are available to writers. But doesn't the act of composition, by its very definition, mean that we we make choices when creating a sentence or crafting an expression? And shouldn't those choices be carefully considered, especially when we're talking about writing as a literary art?

The word composition, when speaking of the arts, means to select, arrange, and form. It's what all artists do: writers, painters, musical composers. Composition is not a willy-nilly, haphazard, by-guess-and-by-gosh process. A good painter doesn't randomly or carelessly put colors, lines, and shapes on a canvas. Those elements are purposely selected and arranged. And so it is with writers and words.

Richard

Petra, I'll believe you if you know differently, but I doubt very much that John Updike didn't get his way when he and the copy editor disagreed. I agree that there is such a thing as a "mistake" as opposed to a mere disagreement, but I think that we are unlikely to be dealing with "mistakes" when an educated and proven writer, with his attention drawn to the issue, sticks to his guns. Also, given that language is fluid and evolving, where but in the writing of top writers should we look to for a reflection of that fluidity and evolution?

Another point worth mentioning is that even Carol has not said that the use of an infinitive as a noun in this context is a "mistake." She wrote, "I don't know if this particular usage could be called incorrect, but it isn't idiomatic." I think when it comes to a discussion of whether a usage is "idiomatic" or not, as opposed to "incorrect," surely the writer should win out over the copy editor, no?

...but I think that we are unlikely to be dealing with "mistakes" when an educated and proven writer, with his attention drawn to the issue, sticks to his guns.

So, educated & proven writers do not make mistakes? What's gotten into you, Bob? I think you know that's bunk. Even copy editors, who are trained to spot errors in other people's writing, can make mistakes in their own work.

Petra, the distinction is between a slip of the pen, or keyboard, which the writer didn't notice, and a difference of opinion which is reflected upon and discussed. In the latter case, my vote would normally go with the distinguished writer rather than the copy-editor.

A nice exception is Elizabeth Bowen's editor, who elegantly objected to one of her more outlandish formulations as

"far, I venture to suggest, fetched."

Oh, fine, I'm in the Twilight Zone because my view is radical and crazy: good writers can make mistakes, not just typos. Why is that possible? Because there are endless possible ways to combine words, and any one combination can give rise to a unique set of circumstances. What is easily a grammatical error in one combination of words, may not be so obvious in another. But that doesn't mean it's not an error.
---
If you're educated and distinguished -- man, you're a perfect Grammar God! You know it all; nobody can tell you any different.
And don't forget that if you're distinguished, if something sounds good to you it IS good, it IS correct. Hoo, boy! You rule, man -- you make our future!

Andrew:

Exactly.

David provided two fine examples: "to cut and run" and "to have and hold". Is it worth noting that these are idioms, which helps us instantly identify them as single actions?

"to cut and run" = "to retreat" = singular

"to have and to hold" = "to love" = singular

"To sigh my anguish" and "to cry my ache" = what singular action?

I suppose "to despair" might work but that requires thought; by the time we've put that together "consumes" flies by. Also, David's examples don't have objects. Yours has two different ones: "my anguish" and "my ache". One single action involving two distinct verbs acting on two separate objects? Without relying on recognized figurative language? I don't think so.

FWIW, I wonder if you would have more agreement if you were to cut away the extraneous bits and present the question simply as:

"To sigh my anguish and to cry my ache" = one or two actions?

-o-

Easy, Petra. I didn't say anything like what you are suggesting - and nor, I think, did Bob. I said that my vote would normally go with the distinguished writer, and I offered a counter-illustration to show where it might not.

Petra, the distinction is between a slip of the pen, or keyboard, which the writer didn't notice, and a difference of opinion which is reflected upon and discussed. In the latter case, my vote would normally go with the distinguished writer rather than the copy-editor.

That's what you wrote, Adam. And it seemed to imply that good writers can make typos OR pen something that can be an issue of disagreement but not an outright error. Bob had earlier implied -- n fact pretty much said outright -- that educated and proven writers don't make mistakes. You seemed to be supporting what he said. My point is that even good writers can make grammatical mistakes; there are things they don't know, or maybe just can't see within the context of what they wrote. They can stubbornly say that something is not an error, when in fact it is.
-------
Bob (of all people! I'd normally say it's not like him) introduced the elitist note in this discussion. I found it both repellent and irrelevant.

I'm not able to type the whole discussion, but for anyone who has access to it, I recommend The New Fowler's Modern English Usage, 3d. ed., edited by R.W Burchfield. The discussion at "agreement (in grammar)" under point 3, nouns joined by "and," presents several examples of cases in which, as it says, "judgments will differ."

Andrew,
On first reading I thought the singular was correct because the two actions, put in some kind of metaphysical, conceptual space by the use of the infinitive, made them seem like one action figuratively presented in two images. However, going back to the translation thread, I felt that the next phrase, "whenever I find myself alone," made the use of the infinitive seem unidiomatic. The poet is describing habitual actions, not making an abstract statement about an emotional state. Thus "crying" and "sighing" seem more appropriate than "to sigh" and "to cry." Because the actions are then more concrete, they ask to be treated separately. You can still assert that they are one action and use the singular, but half the readers are going to trip over it. Only a quarter will trip over the plural--not that you want to decide this by counting noses. It's one of those situations where you can't win, but you can't lose either. Best wishes, Bill

I'm not being elitist at all to suggest that a distinguished writer and person of letters, when asked to publish a piece of writing, should be the one who ultimately decides whether he is satisfied with how the piece is written, and that anyone who gets a copy-editing job is somehow, ex officio, more qualified to make such decisions than the writer himself.

I think the problem is that when a copy editor and a writer disagree, there is no Supreme Court of Usage to appeal to, and so we have no way of knowing who is right, and no way of resolving the issue other than to have one of them defer to the other. To my lights, especially when we are not dealing with a beginning writer but with an accomplished person of letters and a background that assures us that he is every bit as careful and educated about usage as the copy editor, the writer should have the final say. This is especially so when it comes down to a judgment of what is "idiomatic," as opposed to what is "incorrect." Call me elitist if you will, but I'd rather take my chances with Saul Bellow's understanding of usage than that of a copy editor.

Again, there is no Supreme Court, so we cannot know, in the abstract, who is correct and who is mistaken. If you are considering a hypothetical in which a writer and a copy editor disagree, and, in your hypothetical, the copy editor is correct, I would ask you how you know, even in your hypothetical, that this is the case? If we start with the assumption that the copy editor is correct, then of course it doesn't make sense to defer to the writer, but in such stand-offs there is no one who can tell us, as we watch from the sidelines, which of the two is correct, and so my preference would be to respect the writer's wishes after he has been fully apprised of the copy editor's view. It's his byline, let him bear the ultimate responsibility.

Thanks for that thought, Bill -- good idea to bring in the context of the sentence. When I have a bit of time, which won't be until Thursday, I'll keep in mind what you say here.

As well as all the other insights in the thead -- for which, thanks everyone.

Sorry, Bob, but you're quite wrong to think that authors who publish at a big publishing house or in a prestigious magazine or journal have the final say. Changes are made by both the editor and the copy editor. In most cases the author will see galleys, i.e., what the work will look like when published. Sometimes the author is told that he/she can raise points that he/she objects to, but that is far from always the case. Perhaps it's regrettable, but at the same time it's understandable. After all, the publishers & editors don't have the time and desire to listen to authors complaining or even whining about how the changes made destroyed the meaning, ruined the rhythm, or just don't sound good. The battles would go on and on, and nothing would get published. And if they opted to go along with whatever an author said it would reflect not only on the author, but also on the editors and ultimately the magazine or the publishing house.
By the way, as I think I said elsewhere, even translators get edited at major houses. After you translate a foreign text, no matter how careful a job you do, the editors at the publishing house will go over your text and change things, whether you like it or not.
---
PS: Good luck with your Highlights poems. I think I remember reading somewhere that they don't automatically send out galleys to writers. They ask if you want to see the galleys, but at the same time you're told you can't make any changes in them if you do see them, which means you have to accept any changes they might have made in your text. Of course I could be wrong about that.

1. An infinitive is a noun, parallel to the gerund, which can be used as a subject or a direct object. In "I like to eat," "to eat" is the direct object of the verb "like," therefore, "to eat" is a noun. That (like participles) it can take a direct object ("I like to eat meat") is irrelevant to its grammatical status. When it conveys purpose ("I'm buying meat [in order] to eat it"), what we would think of as an infinitive is called the supine, though whether the supine is a noun or not I am not sure.

2. There is a grammatical phenomenon in other languages called attraction, whereby a verb can agree either with all parts of its compound subject or can be attracted to agree with whichever part of the subject is closest to it. This usage is frowned upon by the traditionally over-logical English grammarians, the sort who also frown upon things like splitting infinitives and ending sentences with prepositions; however, this multi-linguistic phenomenon may explain why a singular subject with a plural verb may "sound right" in English even when the "rules" say the verb should be plural.

3. I misread the proposed translation. I read "consume" as part of an indirect statement with an ellipsized "that," i.e., "To sigh [that] my anguish and to cry [that] my ache consume my heart . . ." I think this misreading was facilitated by the use of the infinitive rather than the gerund, which I agree with Carol and others would be the more natural, albeit unmetrical, choice.

Chris