Some sums of money take a singular verb, while vague amounts take a plural verb. This is synese or fictitious correspondence between the subject and the verb, unlike formal concordance. Formal concordance means that a verb is singular or plural depending on the grammatical form of its subject. Fictional correspondence means that a verb is singular or plural, depending on whether its subject is understood as a thing or a lot. Compare these examples: all this applies to “there are a large number of teachers”: as Merriam-Webster`s Dictionary of English Usage notes, “even if the sentence begins there, a number of commands the plural.” Fictional coherence is therefore a natural function of language, so something we have done, who knows how long, but until recently did not notice. Paul Roberts wrote about it in 1954 in Understanding Grammar, and other commentators have written about it ever since, including corypheus Bryan Garner. Other commentators have again advised, in some cases, to follow a fictitious agreement, without saying, perhaps even acknowledging, that they have done so. If a formal agreement distracts readers from your post, it`s time to apply a fictitious agreement instead. But there are times when determining what is considered an “agreement” is not so obvious, because what sounds like a singular noun is really plural, or what sounds like a plural noun is essentially singular. This concept is called a fictitious chord, also known as a fictitious concord or synese. Most English speakers are familiar with the basic rule of subject-verb agreement: a singular noun adopts a singular verb and a plural noun adopts its corresponding plural. I would have liked to think about the question.
This is an excellent illustration of an interesting feature in the English language. But in fact, this example was stolen in a fairly excellent article recently published online by the people of Merriam-Webster. The subject: fictitious agreement. But the fictitious deal goes beyond these two scenarios. There are also words like “political.” The phrases “Politics is a hard job” and “Politics is a hot topic” show that the over-conformity of the verb depends on whether the word is a singular or a plural. Another situation in which you see a fictitious match in the game involves words like “crew,” “couple,” “couple,” and “trio.” These words are singularly. But sometimes it just makes more sense to work with the idea that they represent a plural. “The crew is in place and ready to get to work.” “The couple was seen in a grey car.” I even talked about fictional subjects that are the intended subjects, ousted by “there”, in sentences like “There are croutons in my salad”. If the formal agreement is not concluded to us, we will have a fictitious agreement. It is simply an old agreement. Nothing fictitious. But sometimes things are not so simple.
In these cases, we rely on the meaning – the term behind the words – and we rely our grammar on it. Hence the idea of the fictitious agreement. In addition to the fictitious chord, there is a second principle here that makes the use of a plural veneer more “correct” than the singular, and this is called the principle of proximity. This means, for example, that in a construction like “many night owls”, one might be more inclined to choose a verb form that corresponds to the plural vocabulary, which is closer to the verb (night owl) than the more distant singular (quantity): finally, the context comes into play, the sentence generally offering a kind of information that emphasizes the plenence of it, which is technically a singular noun. With “The two were seen walking in a gray car”, it can be indicated that two people were seen; In the same way, “The crew has prepared for the launch” recalls many people who work together, which indicates a plurality, and it is this idea that pushes a spokesperson to prefer a plural abbreviation. . . .