Sylvia Chalker does not seem to believe that the word who always has to be singular. She thinks that both singular and plural verbs can be used along with who. She also points out that it might make more sense to use plural verbs when a plural answer is necessary, for example, “Who are coming over to swim?” “Melanie and Anna are coming.” Chalker believes that a plural verb might sound more natural in the previous question because the answer is plural. She supports her case with rare situations where plural verbs seem to fit better because of the context of the sentence. Her other way of supporting her case is by using a kind of context where the verb is followed by a “plural noun group” that accompanies the subject. One of her examples, number 15- “Who are understudying Macduff and Lady Macduff?” is a good example of this. Clearly, “Who are understudying…?” does not sound grammatically correct, but it does force the person being asked to realize that the answer should be plural. She came to the conclusion that who is not necessarily singular, but more “neutral” and that the meaning of who can be a little hazy because when used in different questions it can be singular or plural.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
"Is WHO really singular?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I can see Sylvia Chalker's view but I disagree with some aspects. In the first example given, "Who ARE coming over?" I don't feel like it sounds more natural to use the plural verb in the question. Even though the answer is plural the question's intent, in my opinion, is unaware of a plural or singular answer. As for the secong example given, I disagree as well because the question should remain grammatically correct. The answer to the question should be understood through comprehension of the question. I am aware and guilty of not using "who" grammatically correct everytime but I feel this is just a dumbing down if you will of the English language through "easy way outs" such as Silvia Chalker's view on "Is who really singular?".
ReplyDeleteI do understand what Silvia Chalker is talking about when she tries to prove how "who" can be used for not just singular but as well for plural, but i do disagree with what she is saying. I feel as though, she used the examples that sounded like "who" could fit and helped with what she was trying to prove, but to me i still feel as though "who" should be used as singular.
ReplyDeleteI can understand how Silivia Chalker is a firm believer in following the grammatical rule of using both plural subjects and plural verbs. The concept does make sense to me; however, I do not believe that it sounds grammatically correct. Whether repeating the sentences out-loud or reading them silently to myself, most of them sounded awkward and unnatural. During the who vs. whom exercise that we did in class, we were told to pick the word that sounded best to us because we are native speakers. However, in this case, many native speakers would not choose to use both plural subjects and plural verbs because it does not sound right or because we were never taught to speak or write this way.
ReplyDeleteChalker does make a point about instances where who is definitely a plural subject, but did anyone else feel her examples sounded awkward? Our in-class lessons used the singular replacement pronouns he and him. While the subjects and objects were not always a single person, the accompanying verb tense always reflected a singular entity. Those sentences just sounded more correct than Chalker's examples. Her point has merit, but this is one time where I have to side with style over substance.
ReplyDeleteHi Mike, good comment, but "it sounds awkward" and "it sounds more correct" are subjective impressions WE have because we were taught the rule that WHO is always singular. Imagine in 20-30 years from now, the government accepts Sylvia Chalker's suggestion and establishes the rule that WHO can also be plural. The children who grow up and go to school then would learn this rule, and the singular would "sound awkward and incorrect" to them ;-) Right? But still, you can argue from the standpoint of aestheticism. It is just doubtable if you can convince the government this way. For example, the German spelling rules have changed in the last 10 years. The new law has been adopted by 14 out of 15 federal states with the exception of Schleswig Holstein (that means, ONE state uses the old rules!!!) I was totally against it, because it simplified our writing almost to the point of dyslexia. For example, we spell certain foreign words like "Delphin" (=dolphin) Delfin now, because one pronounces it that way. It looks ugly and stupid! Many German scholars protested, but aestheticism lost to simplicity
ReplyDelete;-( That's just one reason why I emigrated ;-)
I understand some of Sylvia Chalker's arguments, but I don't agree with some of her views. I don't think both singular and plural verbs can be used along with who. I see the point she makes about saying, " Who are coming to swim? ", because the answer will be plural, but it just sounds unnatural, and awkward. I know that when I'm talking to my friends casually I make the mistake of using who in a plural form, but I feel when writing it should only be used in the singular.
ReplyDeleteI understand Sylvia Chalker's argument and it does make sense to have who singular AND plural. Chalker's examples also make sense but also sound silly. If people started to talk with sentences such as "Who care coming over to swim?" many older people who are against this rule would not appreciate it as much. It sounds like a sentence a child would start off saying and not an educated adult. I do not support the change in the word "who" and would like to stick to the traditional English language and rules.
ReplyDeleteLike some of my fellow students I do agree with only some of Sylvia Chalker's arguments, even though I agree with some , I dont think that all of her arguements are true. Some of the arguements that she made had made the who/whom sentences sound weird or awkward. But in the end I do agree with her that sometimes who can be neutral in some sentences depending on the sentence but not in every sentence because thats when the sentence sounds just plain silly.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Chalker because she is following the rules according to how grammar should be. However, using "who" as plural sounds very awkward and not natural. This is where the English language becomes tricky for those trying to learn it. There are so many different rules and exceptions for words and sentences. I feel that "who" should only be used as singular only.
ReplyDeleteI understand Chalker's views on the subject of using 'who' with plural verbs, but as everyone else has pointed out, it doesn't sound grammatically correct. I agree with Jamie that these types of things could make learning the English language more difficult. English has a lot of rules and when learning it I can imagine it would be hard to use what one learns along with what one hears in daily life. I think the who/whom activities we did in class really explain some of this issue well.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure how I feel about Chalker's idea about who always being used as plural when the answer's subject is plural. I feel using "are" after who does not sound natural. I also believe that if I am asking a question, I should not necessarily know if the answer is plural or singular. This rule would be useful while taking tests; however, I do not believe it is very practical.
ReplyDeleteI can see where Chalker is coming from with her ideas of a plural "who". However, I agree with Samantha Holland. She said that she believed the question's original intent was unaware if the answer would be singular or plural. Most of the examples Chalker used could, in fact, have singular answers just as easily as they could have plural answers. Therefore, I don't believe the rule should be changed based on a questionable plural "who".
ReplyDeleteI don't really see the need to change the rule on the usage of "who." Whether the verb is singular or plural, we've become used to the convention of using the word "who" singularly. "Who," of course, can undoubtably be used as a plural and therefore could and perhaps should have the correct plural verbs to agree with it. However, as my other classmates have pointed out, it sounds awkward and unnatural. It would be a rough transition to change the grammatical correctness of "who."
ReplyDeleteI'm not quite sure of Chalker's idea but from what I understand it doesn't sound grammatically incorrest in the English language. I also agree with Jamie that the English language is very complicated and there are many rules about proper usage when trying to learn and understand it.
ReplyDeleteWhile is may sound awkward, Chalker has an extremely valid point. "Who are coming over to swim?" makes more sense grammatically than "Who is coming to swim?" when you're talking about more than one person coming over to swim. It would take people a long time to adopt who as being plural, and people who have used it singular only would probably never adapt to using it as a plural. But subsequent generations of English speaking people would get used to using it as both a singular and a plural and it would no longer sound awkward.
ReplyDeleteAfter thinking about it, I think Chalker is probably right. I don't think it's one of those things in grammar that can make sense either way, but technically speaking, Chalker's ideas seem correct. It will sound weird still to a good number of people, but if it became the official word on the rule, then over time I think it could be adapted and common usage.
ReplyDeleteLogically it makes sense to use who as plural when the verb being answered is plural. However, I do agree that it does sound awkward when asking a question. I can agree that it can be neutral and that it does force the other person to answer the question in plural from. Grammatically looking at it, yes it sounds right, however, if I were to hear someone speak that way (prior to reading this) I would have thought that it was incorrect.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Joana that when reading it, it looks correct but when hearing it, using who as a plural sounds incorrect.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Chalker, that it would make more sense to use who as a plural because when expecting a plural answer you should use a plural question. If you are expecting that more than one person is coming over to swim, then it only makes sense to say, "Who are coming over to swim." Although it might sound a bit odd, it seems more gramatically correct to use who as a plural.
I feel as though slyia makes an excellent point in how "who" can be plural . However in everyday life we really dont use it properly.chakler does make the point thatit does matter to uise it correclty and it really does make more sense to use it
ReplyDeleteI understand what Chalker is trying to prove in saying that who can be used in both singular and plural tenses but when she makes the argument for the word who to be plural I disagree. When using who in the plural tense the way that it sounds is just not right. However there are many instances where a tense might not sound correct however it is grammatically correct but I don't feel this is one of those circumstances.
ReplyDelete