UKC

I often see people correcting mistakes on here, so figured this is a good place to ask.

Which of the following is correct:
"There is a number of factors..." or "There are a number of factors..."

The latter sounds correct but I can't make my mind up as "a number" is singular and "factors" plural....

Grammar is not my area of expertise...

In reply to stella1:

The former is correct, the latter is more common.

In reply to stella1:

John is correct.

"There is a (singular) number..."

"There are numerous (plural)..."

This is why I end up shouting at the telly when somebody from the BBC announces that "the government (singular) are...".

JW

In reply to stella1:

Like "I can see a pride of lions".

Last year on a national primary school exam paper, there was a question something like...

"A polar bear weighs three times more than a baby elephant. Together they weigh 600Kg. How much does the baby elephant weigh?"

The answer in the mark scheme was 150Kg.

The question should have "...three times as much as...", That would give 150Kg. As it stands the question implies a weight of 120Kg for the elephant. That would have been marked as wrong.

In reply to John Ww:

Thanks a lot guys.

I'm making corrections to a paper. I had originally written "There is a number" but my supervisor had changed it and made me doubt myself.

In reply to stella1:

I would disagree with the Johns, there are lots of Johns on this thread and there is lots of concern at my end about their advice.

Because factors is plural that determines whether number is treated as singular or plural.

In reply to stella1:

Nope - it's *a* number. That's singular, no matter what it's a number of.

But in a piece of formal writing, I'd strongly suggest a rewrite to avoid the question altogether.

In reply to winhill:
There is a plethora of opinions on this.

EDIT: Maybe: A plethora of opinion.

There is a multitude of factors.

In reply to john arran:

Wrong wrong, wrong.

See Hart's Rules page 170 - 'When used as the subject of a quantity, words like number, percentage, and proportion are singular with a definite article and plural with an indefinite:
The percentage of tourists is increasing, a proportion of whom return regularly.
While a proportion of accidents are inevitable, the percentage continues to fall.
A number of pandas are just over there, so their number is increasing.'

https://goetheindia.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/new-harts-rules.pdf

In reply to stella1:

Rewrite to "There are numerous factors ..."

In reply to John Ww:


My understanding is that it all depends a bit on context - in this case, I'd agree that 'the government is...' seems preferable to 'the government are...', but the latter is still acceptable because it can refer to the individuals in the group as well as the group itself. Similarly, 'West Ham is...' and 'West Ham are...' would both work, but you need to stick with whichever you use.

In reply to Removed UserBwox:

Yes, Americans would say the Who/Chelsea is a rock band/soccer team and we'd say the Who/Chelsea are a rock band/football club.

Most people wouldn't say, 'Oi, the police is outside.'

In reply to John2:






Bump. Yes, best to stick to 'New Hart's Rules'

In reply to stella1:

Does anyone still use Fowler's Modern English Usage as arbiter?

'When the word number is itself the subject it is a safe rule to treat it as singular when it has a definite article and as plural when it has an indefinite. The number of people present was large,but, A large number of people were present'

By that rule your supervisor is correct.

In reply to John2:

I stand corrected ... ish. Thank you for the link.

However, given that it clearly sounds quite wrong by that definition to so many people I would suggest rephrasing to avoid the issue.

In reply to John Ww:


No he isn't.


Yeah, but it's synecdoche, innit?

In reply to Bob:


That was my suggestion too.

In reply to john arran:

The fact that a large number of people think that something is wrong does not necessarily mean that it is wrong. 'A number of factors' is a noun phrase that denotes more than one factor, and that phrase is the subject of the sentence.

In reply to john arran:


No.

The entity in question is "a number of factors" - this is plural - not "a number".

So:

"There is a number that is divisible by 5..." refers to a single number and takes "is", but
"There are a number of swans on the pond" refers to several swans and takes "are"

In reply to streapadair:




Yes, by and large, everyone in publishing sticks to the Hart's Rules (now called Oxford Style Rules) which evolved from Fowler's MEU. Safest thing to do. So I don't know why everyone is arguing. Simpler just to be consistent with what is now generally accepted.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Harts pre-dates Fowler by about 50 years

In reply to MG:


There's nothing in the earlier, 1978, edition of Hart's on this question. The New Hart's Rules, published in 2005, was adapted from the Oxford Guide to Style of 2002, which in turn was directly based on FMEU. It's worth noting that the latter itself emerged from Fowler's earlier, classic The King's English of 1906. In that, however, he only mentions the rule of using a singular verb with a collective noun preceded by a definite article.

In reply to MG:

PS. It's worth reading Bill Bryson's short, pragmatic article on the question of collectives in his excellent Troublesome Words of 1987.

In reply to stella1:

my wife is greek, and this is why i struggle to learn that language, i have no idea about the structure of my own language, looks like i'm not alone.

In reply to stella1:

I feel like an internet troll.... If only I hadn't replied. Best just to re-write I think.

Thanks for the discussion though.

In reply to stella1:
It should be "there are a number of factors" apart from the fact that "there is a number of factors" just does not sound right the number in the context of what you say isn't really singular, it's referring to a quantity i.e. several. Even if it were grammatically correct I could not bring myself to write "there is". The sentence is plural in every sense of the word.

In reply to lowersharpnose:






Elephants weigh more than 120kg.

In reply to Dave the Rave:

Do they weigh 150 kg?

In reply to Dave the Rave:

The question did say baby elephant, so a weight of < 100Kg could be possible.

In reply to lowersharpnose:


How old is the baby elephant?

In reply to Mountain Llama:

If x is the weight of the polar bear, then three times more than is x + 3x. So combined weight is 5x. I added this question as an example of how easy it is to get the wrong meaning.

In reply to Dave the Rave:

Young enough to give the correct answer.

In reply to Mountain Llama:

Depending which species/subspecies we are discussing, a newborn baby elephant has a mass of around 110-140Kg.

How much it weighs will of course vary on prevailing gravitational conditions and will be measured in Newtons.

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:

Not in a KS2 paper (that's the one for children about to leave primary school).

In reply to GridNorth:


Which is readily shown by dropping 'a number' from the phrase:

"There are factors"

How many factors?

"There are a number of factors"...

Or... "There are multiple factors".

In reply to stella1:

It seems to sound better when reduced in speech to, "There's a number of factors." If one actually says, or writes, "There is a number..." it seems to jar much more. All very odd!

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:

I'd have thought that whether it is an African or European elephant would also matter; as would whether it is laden with a coconut?

Cheers
LD

In reply to stella1:

Also noone gives a shit..

I spent 3 months passing my thesis between my 70 year old, 60 year old, 50 year old and 35 year old supervisors...

No edit satisfied them all...

The basic message never changed yet they just changed each others edits, and sometimes their own...

In the end I was quite strict it went to A for x weeks, B for X weeks, Y for X weeks, Z for X weeks, then was in public domain for a week then I published..

After it was in hard copy the old supervisor emailed complaining.. but he had the manuscript saying 'reply in 10 days or I publish' and never did..