[Lexicog] Re: categorization of nouns

[Fritz Goerling]

Fewer than two can be nobody, so then it would be "is."

Who is going to challenge this?

 

Fritz Goerling

 

More than none of you am confused.

 

Ron Moe

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of David Tuggy
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 3:58 PM
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Lexicog] Re: categorization of nouns

But if the two are of us, the fewer could be I, you, or s/he, could
they/it/I/you/s/he not?

--David T

John Roberts wrote: 

Sorry to deflate the McSwell but "fewer than two" is not first person, so 
"am" is the incorrect form of the verb.
 
Fewer than two of us is very interested in all of this.
 
is the correct form. David got it right the first time.
 
John Roberts
 
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Maxwell"  <mailto:maxwell at ldc.upenn.edu> <maxwell at ldc.upenn.edu>
To:  <mailto:lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com>
<lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Lexicog] Re: categorization of nouns
 
 
  

David Tuggy wrote:
    

Fewer than two of us is very interested in all of this.
      

As the resident grammar expert, I can say that the *correct* form is:
 
  Fewer than two of us am very interested in all of this.
 
 
  Mike McSwell
 
    

 
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20060617/0ab1daee/attachment.htm>