Re: when to use the plural form of a noun
- From: Robert Lieblich <r_s_lieblich@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 09:25:34 -0400
Don Phillipson wrote:
"good_man" <good_man_101@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I was reading an article in a newpaper and came across this line:
"The surging price of oil and gasoline has sparked a wave of jockeying
in Washington that could presage the biggest change in federal energy
policy since the 1970s."
I thought, since it talks about the prices of two things - oil and
gasoline, it should read somthing like this:
"The surging PRICES of oil and gasoline HAVE sparked a wave of
jockeying in Washington that could presage the biggest change in
federal energy policy since the 1970s."
Can you please tell me if I am wrong and why?
Prices for oils and gasoline are altered up and down
by production companies according to a single
price for unrefined oilwell product, that is used for
wholesale sales between producers. This single
price is reported every day in the financial press,
often recently on the front page as well (because
retail gasoline prices went to $1 per litre when bulk oil
prices exceed $75 per barrel.) Thus the single
"price" is correct for this sort of economic discussion.
The first word of the answer contradicts the rest of it. So do the
facts: In the US, and probably most other places, the "price of oil"
is generally taken to be the number of dollars charged at any given
time for one barrel of Saudi light crude, currently somewhat above
USD70.00 per barrel. Gasoline costs approximately $3.00 per gallon,
varying with location and octane. There is obviously a relationship
between the two prices, but to say they are one and the same is
equivalent to saying that the price of pork bellies and the price of
bacon are the same. No.
So to the extent that the issue is grammatical, I'd say that ordinary
notions of agreement in number call for plural "prices" and
corresponding plural "have." Don's answer indicates why lots of
people tend to think that there's a single "price" and to speak and
write accordingly. But real life differs, and although the sin is
venial, the grammar is bad.
Of course, the author could have avoided the problem by leaving out
gasoline and simply writing about "the surging price of oil." I think
that may be part of what led Don down the primrose path.
If I might address "good man" directly -- It would help us greatly if
you would include the location of any quotation you ask about,
preferably with a way to find it online. Thank you.
--
Bob Lieblich
Who may have to start subwaying to work again
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: when to use the plural form of a noun
- From: good_man
- Re: when to use the plural form of a noun
- From: tinwhistler
- Re: when to use the plural form of a noun
- From: Jeffrey Turner
- Re: when to use the plural form of a noun
- References:
- when to use the plural form of a noun
- From: good_man
- Re: when to use the plural form of a noun
- From: Don Phillipson
- when to use the plural form of a noun
- Prev by Date: Re: No Hint Seen In Memo That Valerie Plame's Role At CIA Was Secret
- Next by Date: Re: "He must have been being interviewed"
- Previous by thread: Re: when to use the plural form of a noun
- Next by thread: Re: when to use the plural form of a noun
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|