[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 118 KB, 282x282, 1477481045138.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9013053 No.9013053 [Reply] [Original]

>the twenties were an exciting time
>the twenties was an exciting time


Well, /lit/?

>> No.9013064

>the neighbours were a pair of fuckable girls
Id say were

>> No.9013072

Were, m8, subject is plural, doesn't matter that the object isn't.

>> No.9013078
File: 34 KB, 546x546, 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9013078

The first one.

What are you, retarded?

>> No.9013080

was

>> No.9013086

>>9013078
>>9013072
>>9013064
that's what I thought, but I'm reading some random biography of Marshall McLuhan that I got at the library, and it uses "was"

I guess even illiterate people can write/edit books now.

>> No.9013099

>>9013053
>>9013086
Under the strict prescriptivism of >>9013064 and >>9013072 'were' is correct.

A counter-argument can be made by offering the plural number subject as a set. Compare:

"Twenty dollars is a lot of money."
versus
"Twenty dollars are a lot of money."

So, if the intention is to nudge the reader to think of "the twenties" as a discrete unit of time, then 'was' is also nice and will suffice.

>> No.9013106

>>9013053
were you lived it

was you didn't live it

>> No.9013107

>>9013053
Either is acceptable.

This is a difference in British/International and American English.

> the government were told about the law
American
> the government was told about the law
British/International

>> No.9013147

>The 1920s ____ a decade of relative prosperity

Were/was?

>> No.9013154

>the period of time were an exciting time
?????

>> No.9013170

>>9013154
You can singularise any plural like that

>> No.9013173

>If a stranger knocks on your door, tell him to leave
>If a stranger knocks on your door, tell them to leave
Well?

>> No.9013174

>>9013147
Either.

>>9013154
> The years 1920-1929 were an exciting time
> The period 1920-1929 was an exciting time

>> No.9013181

>>9013173
'Him' or 'her'.

'Them' is third person plural.

>> No.9013187

>>9013173
First is fine unless you're in earshot of a strong womyn.

Second is fine and common where I live but would be frowned upon in some parts of the world.

>> No.9013191
File: 33 KB, 640x640, 1484070272270.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9013191

>> No.9013205

>>9013191
We had a whole thread of autism for is one, we don't need it again.

>> No.9013206

>>9013191
scoff

>> No.9013235
File: 544 KB, 699x2784, 645674555555555.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9013235

>>9013154
>>9013174
OP sentence's "The Twenties" are clearly conceived as one entity that described ONE particular historical period, now each year within it. The subject describes a whole, not a group of many

>> No.9013244

>>9013181
>>9013187
I know it's a very popular SJW thing to use such examples to justify their retarded pronouns, but on a logical level, I feel like "them" makes more sense. "A stranger" clearly means a large number of potential strangers, and saying "him" randomly designates them as males only

>> No.9013262

>>9013191

scarf

>> No.9013273
File: 3.92 MB, 500x620, image.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9013273

>>9013053
Will be

>> No.9013301

>>9013107
As an American, I hear the latter almost exclusively. I'm sure there are people who would say "were," but "was" is much more common in that sentence.

>> No.9013322

>>9013170
You can pluralise any singular, durr.

>> No.9013325

>>9013053
Both are correct

>> No.9013340

>>9013053
>thems tvventies wore'n som intressen happenings

>> No.9013346

Двaдцaтыe гoды были зaвopaживaющим вpeмeнeм

>""""'english""""" """"""language""""""
>not absolute shit

>> No.9013381

>>9013301
> "was" is much more common in that sentence
Yes, in America.

Everywhere else, 'were'.