Simple sentences

Reduced to an absolute minimum, a sentence must have a subject and a finite verb. The subject is the person or thing who (or which) does something and the verb is what is being done.

The boy rode.

Here the subject (the boy) did something (rode) in the past. If we had used the infinitive (to ride) we would have produced something which is unfinished to the point where it is nonsense:

The boy to ride.

On the other hand, we could have used the finite verb in other tenses and said, for example

The boy rides,

or

The boy will ride.

The first, third and fourth examples are very simple sentences, but we could make them more complicated by saying, for example

The boy rode a bicycle.

In this example, we have added an object. In grammatical terms, the word object simply signifies the person or thing to which the activity of the verb is done.

Another common form of sentence has no object but does have a complement. For example, in the following sentence round the block is the complement:

The boy rode round the block.

In English, unlike many other languages, the order of the words is crucial. The following two sentences use exactly the same words but mean fundamentally different things.

The boy killed the girl.

The girl killed the boy.

The basic principles to remember about simple sentences are:

they begin with a capital letters (even when the first word is not the name of a person or a place);

they have a finite verb;

the order of the words determines the meaning of the sentence; and

the subject and the verb must agree as to number.

Your response to these four points may be that you have no problem with the first three, but that you do not understand the fourth one. In fact, the fourth one has a very clear meaning: it is simply expressed in technical language. All it means is that if the subject is singular, the verb must also be singular; and if the subject is plural, the verb must also be in the plural. Most people find that, most of the time, they instinctively use language in such a way as to satisfy this need for agreement. So (leaving aside some dialect usages) most people would not have to think about any matters of grammar before saying

the boy was riding

rather than

the boy were riding;

or

the boys were riding

rather than

the boys was riding.

However, some words present a very common source of error in relation to agreement between subject and verb. Test yourself on the following two sentences:

There are a number of reasons why you should read this book.

There is a number of reasons why you should read this book.

Many people feel, intuitively, that the first version is correct on the basis that the plural reasons requires the plural verb are. As a matter of strict grammar, however, the second version is correct because it is the singular number which governs the verb, which is, therefore, also required to be in the singular. In fact, so many people would instinctively use the first version that you may wish to say that it constitutes an exception to the rule that a singular subject requires a singular verb.

there are many reasons why you should read this book.

Therefore, rewriting it in this way will offend nobody, while avoiding a form of words which sounds awkward, and without having had to complicate your expression or compromise your meaning in any way.

A second trap for the unwary when making subjects agree with their verbs as to number is the apparently innocuous word none. Once again, test yourself on the following two sentences.

None of them were right.

None of them was right.

Many people would happily use the first version; and, if they heard it, would feel intuitively that it is grammatically correct. However, as with the previous example, this is an illusion. As a matter of strict grammar, the second example is preferable. The explanation is that, once again, people are misled by a grammatically irrelevant plural (in this case them), and have overlooked the fact that the grammatically relevant none originated as a shortened version of not one and is, therefore, singular. Of course, if you feel the grammatically correct version sounds awkward or pedantic, the answer is simple: remember the mongoose principle and write:

They were all wrong.

The final commonly encountered difficulty with singulars and plurals arises from collective nouns. These are singular in form but nevertheless refer to a number of people or things. Examples of collective nouns include army, jury, and team (each of which consists of a number of members), as well as companies and local authorities such as Marks and Spencer and Camden London Borough Council (which consist, respectively, of all the shareholders and all the councillors).

The basic principle is that either a singular or a plural verb may be used, provided internal consistency is maintained. So, for example, the following are both equally acceptable:

When the army comes home, it will be welcomed by the local community.

When the army come home, they will be welcomed by the local community.

However, it would be wrong (because it would be internally inconsistent) to say either of the following:

When the army comes home, they will be welcomed by the local community.

When the army come home, it will be welcomed by the local community.

This freedom of choice is limited in some cases, where the crucial issue is whether the collective noun is being used to identify a single entity, or as shorthand for all the members of the group. So, for example, the following are both wrong:

The family are an important social unit. (The are must be replaced by is.)

My family is the kindest people I know. (The is must be replaced by are.)

Finally, collective nouns which refer to inanimate objects (such as cutlery, crockery and luggage) are always singular. For example, it is correct to say:

the cutlery is in the drawer

and wrong to say

the cutlery are in the drawer.