Quick question: what is the plural of 'go'?

[Lord Bracknell]

ok lets settle this:

he goes to work... clearly not plural
they go to work... plural.

so the plural of go is go. unless it's goes.

in conclusion, theres no definitive answer, it depends on the context and many other thing, probably including which side of an ocean or century you were born.

It's unfair to pick on this particular post, but ... am I alone in being astounded at the lack of basic knowledge of English grammar being displayed? It's not just that people don't know the answers to the questions that are being asked; they don't understand the questions.

 

[Sussex on Leith]

I've no idea why I called him Jeremy and not Matt

I can remember Jeremy Goss playing for Norwich when they were briefly good, think he scored against Bayern when Norwich beat them in Europe at some point. But he definitely wasn't in Bros, because the third bloke in Bros was Scottish and wasn't called Goss, and Jeremy Goss was Welsh and was called Goss. I hope that clears things up.

I've often wondered why the plural of goose is geese, but the plural of moose is mooses. When I say often wondered, I mean a couple of times before tonight. It hasn't plagued me with sleepless nights forever and a day.

Only two things stick in my mind from when I used to run a pub quiz: the first is that lots of very strange and very angry people go to rural pub quizzes. and the second is that the plural of mongoose is mongooses.

 

[Triggaaar]

am I alone in being astounded at the lack of basic knowledge of English grammar being displayed?

I'm not astounded. Not everyone is good at English, and not everyone cares about it.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Sad to say, I know his name was Craig Logan. : for knowing this.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I had a correspondence with the Radio Times Editor over this tweet...

Ben Preston ‏@RTBenPreston
1 in 4 kids 'are' illiterate says Boris @MayorofLondon in Guardian splash. Not greatest way to launch education crusade. He means 'is'!

I still think RTBen is wrong.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I can remember Jeremy Goss playing for Norwich when they were briefly good, think he scored against Bayern when Norwich beat them in Europe at some point. But he definitely wasn't in Bros, because the third bloke in Bros was Scottish and wasn't called Goss, and Jeremy Goss was Welsh and was called Goss. I hope that clears things up.



Only two things stick in my mind from when I used to run a pub quiz: the first is that lots of very strange and very angry people go to rural pub quizzes. and the second is that the plural of mongoose is mongooses.

Ah yes. Jeremy Goss. I seem to remember him scoring a rather good goal to beat Liverpool 1-0 as well.

Mongooses. The English language keeps on giving!

 

[Triggaaar]

I had a correspondence with the Radio Times Editor over this tweet...

Ben Preston ‏@RTBenPreston
1 in 4 kids 'are' illiterate says Boris @MayorofLondon in Guardian splash. Not greatest way to launch education crusade. He means 'is'!

I still think RTBen is wrong.

It seems that he's saying it's the 1 that is illiterate, so it's treated as third-person singular (he/she), as opposed to third-person plural (they). However, '1 in 4 kids' doesn't strike me as singular any more than '25% of kids' would. He should know a hell of a lot more about grammar than me, but I'm not sure I believe him either.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

It seems that he's saying it's the 1 that is illiterate, so it's treated as third-person singular (he/she), as opposed to third-person plural (they). However, '1 in 4 kids' doesn't strike me as singular any more than '25% of kids' would. He should know a hell of a lot more about grammar than me, but I'm not sure I believe him either.

I agree. I'd have thought one is dealing with a fraction of children (1/4) on average across an entire group, so should be treated as a plural.

 

[Triggaaar]

I agree. I'd have thought one is dealing with a fraction of children (1/4) on average across an entire group, so should be treated as a plural.

Indeed. If he's going to publicly mock a politician for having poor grammar, he'd better make bloody sure he's right. Let's write (let's = let us, which means you) to a higher authority and check we're right, before we form an action group and take this sucker down!

 

[HastingsSeagull]

I hope he come-comes.

I heard he can-can for the right price

 

[HastingsSeagull]

It seems that he's saying it's the 1 that is illiterate, so it's treated as third-person singular (he/she), as opposed to third-person plural (they). However, '1 in 4 kids' doesn't strike me as singular any more than '25% of kids' would. He should know a hell of a lot more about grammar than me, but I'm not sure I believe him either.

1 kid is illiterate
4 kids are illiterate
1 in 4 kidS ARE illiterate............ kidSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

yes I'm with YOU

 

[Triggaaar]

1 kid is illiterate
4 kids are illiterate
1 in 4 kidS ARE illiterate............ kidSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

yes I'm with YOU

We've set up a facebook action group, get on board.

 

[beorhthelm]

It's unfair to pick on this particular post, but ... am I alone in being astounded at the lack of basic knowledge of English grammar being displayed?

i dont want to pick on this responce but jees, i was taking the piss. clearly needed more lol x

 

[Surf's Up]

She goes like the clappers
They go like the clappers

 

[Gwylan]

1 kid is illiterate
4 kids are illiterate
1 in 4 kidS ARE illiterate............ kidSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

yes I'm with YOU

No, the verb agrees with the subject of sentence: the subject is singular so it's "1 in 4 kids is illiterate". RTBen is right.

Do you think that "20 footballers supporters were involved in the fight but only one of them are arrested" is correct?

It's a similar situation to the example quoted earlier. "A group of supporters is ...". If the subject is singular, it doesn't matter what else is in the sentence, the verb will take a singular form.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I'm not astounded. Not everyone is good at English, and not everyone cares about it.

But surely everyone should know that nouns have plurals and verbs don't? This isn't really grammar - it's just the meaning of words.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Do you think that "20 footballers supporters were involved in the fight but only one of them are arrested" is correct?

Was arrested.

 

[Bakero]

I've often wondered why the plural of goose is geese, but the plural of moose is mooses. When I say often wondered, I mean a couple of times before tonight. It hasn't plagued me with sleepless nights forever and a day.

Would you really say mooses? I'd say the plural of moose is moose.

 

[Bakero]

I think I am wrong anyway. The plural of moose seems to be moose.

It seems I replied too soon

 

[Gwylan]

Was arrested.

Well, I was making a point about plural v singular but yes, the tenses should agree too. I suppose my wrong example should have read 'were' arrested.

But if the example were "If 20 supporters were involved in a fight, how come only one were arrested", I think that would be correct because the conditional would take a subjunctive. Complicated business English grammar, innit?