0
Anonymous Posted 15 years ago
Grammar

Singular noun with plural in parentheses [noun(s)] and conjugation of accompanying verb

In a masters thesis in anthropology, my girlfriend is writing of "knowledge(s)", i.e. with plural form in parentheses. "Knowledges" is no word, but in the context of her thesis topic, talking of several knowledges is relevant, in a sense closely related to knowledge systems or paradigms. Using the latter words or versions thereof brings an unwanted system perspective, however, and one of her points is in fact that these (potential) "knowledge systems" or "knowledge(s)" are not really distinct, but fluid and overlapping, or at least acted on as if they were. She is therefore using "knowledge(s)", partly owing to the anthropologist Fredrik Barth's use of the same wording. The question then, is how to conjugate the following verb.

So, which conjugated version of "to be" is correct in the following sentence: "... leads to the argument that the way knowledge(s) IS/ARE handled in this context contributes to ..."?

I believe the general rule is that grammar follows what is not in parentheses, right? Does this apply in this case as well? It sounds better with "are".

Thanks a lot!

Regards,

Halvor
  

Top answer

If I understand you aright, she is not using knowledge(s) to mean knowledge or knowledges , but to mean knowledges only. It that is the case, then in spite of what Barth has done, I highly recommend that she abandon it in favour of simply knowledges . (1) Such specialized formations are permissible in academic works, (2) her use is contrary to the accepted use of the parenthetical plural, and (3) it causes the ongoing concord problem that you have asked about.

— Mister Micawber

  • If I understand you aright, she is not using knowledge(s) to mean knowledge or knowledges , but to mean knowledges only.
  • It that is the case, then in spite of what Barth has done, I highly recommend that she abandon it in favour of simply knowledges .
  • (1) Such specialized formations are permissible in academic works, (2) her use is contrary to the accepted use of the parenthetical plural, and (3) it causes the ongoing concord problem that you have asked about.
  • Another option is to do whatever Barth did about that problem.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

5 Answers
0
If I understand you aright, she is not using knowledge(s) to mean knowledge or knowledges, but to mean knowledges only. It that is the case, then in spite of what Barth has done, I highly recommend that she abandon it in favour of simply knowledges. (1) Such specialized formations are permissible in academic works, (2) her use is contrary to the accepte
0
0
Thanks, Mister Micawber.

We (she, that is) opt for plural knowledges, then, adding a comment in a footnote when used the first time, explaining the rationale behind it. (The theoretical rationale, that is, not the grammatical).

(And indeed, why had I not thought of having a look at Barth's solution..)

Question answered. Is there anything I should do to indicate th
0
0
Sorry to chime in on your question with another question, but I've been searching the internet for help with my own punctuation curiousity, and your question is the closest I've come to finding a similar issue. How do you conjugate a verb after punctuated material if the punctuated material contains a different person/tense?

Here's my question, better posed in an example...

This
0
0
The rule is that parenthetical remarks are by definition not a part of the grammatical structure of the sentence, so 'he earns' is correct. If you wish to subordinate the friends you can also do so with a conjunction such as 'along with' or 'as well as', but the result is the same: only the grammatical subject ('he') determines the number of the verb: 'he, along with his friends,
0
0
Very sound guidance. Thanks!
0

Related Questions