[Carol Taylor]

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.

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

[Petra Norr]

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”.

[Carol Taylor]

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

Carol

[Richard Meyer]

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

[Petra Norr]

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.

[Carol Taylor]

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

[Andrew Frisardi]

Originally Posted by Carol Taylor

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.

[Roger Slater]

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.

[Carol Taylor]

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

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

[Carol Taylor]

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