I'm still an English professor. Shoot.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > I'm still an English professor. Shoot.

i am the bird: Mar 2, 2005; I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

billion dollar bitch posted:

Also, is it "There are a lot of people there" or "There is a lot of people"?

(For the record, I go with the former in both cases, but the people i'm talking with choose the latter.)

"There are a lot" is incorrect because lot is singular.

edit:

I think the problem most people have with the phrase "a lot" is that they treat it like an adjective when it is really a noun.

Drop the prepositional phrase at the end of the sentence and determine if the following is correct: "There are a lot."

Alternatively, you could replace "a lot" with "a group" to highlight why using "are" is wrong: "There are a group of people."

i am the bird fucked around with this message at 16:07 on May 8, 2009

# ¿ May 8, 2009 16:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 1, 2024 15:13

i am the bird: Mar 2, 2005; I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

billion dollar bitch posted:

But wouldn't its status as a part of speech change when you use it in this context?

The verb is referring to a single entity: "a lot." The prepositional phrase at the end of the sentence is irrelevant in this regard and only serves to describe what the "lot" consists of.

Incorrect
"There are a lot of people."
"There are a stack of books."

Correct
"There is a lot of people."
"There is a stack of books."

# ¿ May 8, 2009 18:26

i am the bird: Mar 2, 2005; I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

mystes posted:

Could you provide some sort of source for this? This is certainly contrary to accepted modern usage so perhaps you can provide a historical justification?

(Obviously if you were a slave trader and there was a lot of people up for auction that would be a different story).

In informal speech/writing, sure, I can see it being acceptable. Formally, however, "a lot" is not an adjective and is not interchangeable with a word like "many." Once you get past that hangup, we're just with dealing basic grammatical rules. "A lot" is singular; therefore, the verb should be referring to a singular entity. Even though it sounds stupid, the phrase "a lot of people is outside" is also correct.

Sorry for the derail, everyone. :v:

Brainstorm posted:

When does Hamlet start going crazy for real? We know he's faking insanity from Act I forward, and (twist!) we find out he's lost it for real when he imagines seeing his father's ghost when he confronts Gertrude. So he goes from faking crazy to real crazy at some point during II or III. The actor needs to decide when this is, and how to best pull off the surprise-I'm-actually-nuts bit with Gertrude.

I had a professor that argued that even the Hamlet/Gertrude scene is ambiguous because the ghost could have just appeared to Hamlet. I think that's a bogus explanation considering multiple characters see the ghost at the beginning of the play, but hey. After reading your teaching techniques, I'm wondering if she just duped us into an argument by stating that...

i am the bird fucked around with this message at 19:12 on May 8, 2009

# ¿ May 8, 2009 18:58

i am the bird: Mar 2, 2005; I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

Do you have a reference for that, Brain? My grammar book isn't with me at the moment so I can't really verify, but I've never seen "a lot" being recognized as an actual adjective. Lot (defined: a number of things or persons collectively) is a noun, which would make the verb "is" correct for the sentence in question. "There is a lot," is a poor sentence without context, but it is still grammatically correct. Crowd, lot, group, set, etc. are all equivalents in this regard.

# ¿ May 8, 2009 20:04

i am the bird: Mar 2, 2005; I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

Brainworm posted:

I've heard that ambiguity argument seriously advanced before, but Macbeth seems to preclude it (at least if we assume ghosts work consistently in the Shakespearean universe). Banquo's ghost (which nobody else sees) isn't there in the same sense that the blood on Lady Macbeth's hands isn't there, and in the same sense that Macbeth's floating dagger isn't there, either.

Seeing things that aren't there is a Shakespearean signal that someone's losing their poo poo, even in plays with a supernatural component. I've never heard anyone suggest that the witches conjured up a vision of Banquo to freak out Macbeth (i.e. that the ghost is really there even though nobody else can see it), which seems as close an analogue as you'll get to the ghost electing to appear only to Hamlet.

I didn't really have any other argument to stand on because I haven't read much Shakespeare (taking a class next fall, though!), so this is an interesting point.

What's your opinion on the Ophelia death scene in Hamlet? Did Gertrude actually see the whole scene? If so, why didn't she send help? That one never really made sense to me.

# ¿ May 9, 2009 13:24

i am the bird: Mar 2, 2005; I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

Brainworm posted:

grammar

If we're talking idioms/informal language, that makes sense. I guess my whole formal argument is irrelevant, anyway, because "a lot" or "lots" are not the best word choices in a formal paper. :v:

# ¿ May 9, 2009 16:30

i am the bird: Mar 2, 2005; I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

Keshik posted:

What do you recommend to anyone who hates the Bible but wants to gain a greater appreciation of literature?

Bel_Canto posted:

My advice would be to try to approach it as a work of literature rather than as some kind of book of morality.

I agree with Bel, including the recommendation to start with Job; the moral struggle of that book makes it a fascinating read.

My favorite is probably the story of David, though, especially if you go into it with the popular opinion of Christians that David is the model of benevolence he's not.

Also, no offense, but this:

Keshik posted:

As an atheist, I can't read the Bible or any commentaries on the Biblical text without throwing my hands up in frustration.

makes you sound as ridiculous as the religious nut jobs who want to burn every copy of Harry Potter and Twilight. There's more to the Bible than preachy nonsense and 30 page lineages (although there is a lot of that, too).

i am the bird fucked around with this message at 02:19 on May 11, 2009

# ¿ May 11, 2009 02:13

i am the bird: Mar 2, 2005; I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

Writing the best paper in class is also not always equivalent to writing an A paper.

# ¿ May 20, 2009 15:11

i am the bird: Mar 2, 2005; I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

I'm taking a Shakespeare class this Fall so I'm already banking on using this thread as an additional resource. :v:

# ¿ Aug 2, 2009 23:05

i am the bird: Mar 2, 2005; I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

Use the Purdue OWL for all your MLA citation needs.

For your question:

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/08/

# ¿ Dec 5, 2010 06:55

i am the bird: Mar 2, 2005; I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

Omglosser posted:

Hello Brainworm. I am an English major. I have a question!

I'm a stone's throw away from an associate's degree, and I'm just curious: Will there be any classes down the road to bachelors/masters that REALLY go into detail about the rules of grammar? As far as my lovely community college tells me, there are none. You were supposed to learn and memorize it in 6th grade, and no one else in the world has this information, but will pigeon hold you and you will never ever get a job in your entire life if you don't already 'get' it.

It just bothers me because the average person seems to be completely loving clueless about grammar and frankly quite intimidated by it, so where's the education? So far I've only taken essay and technical writing classes, as well as literature.

I experienced a similar situation at my small, liberal arts college. Only two classes existed for the purpose of teaching grammar: a freshman level composition class and the rare opportunity for independent study of rhetoric (with an admittedly awesome professor).

From what I understand, many English programs don't offer these types of classes; instead, they focus mostly on literature. The strange part of this to me is that, when looking at potential grad schools, I found numerous institutions that offer an M.A. in composition, rhetoric, etc. Where these graduates are going (edit: aside from homeless shelters), I have no idea.

# ¿ Oct 23, 2011 14:49

i am the bird: Mar 2, 2005; I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

Froglin posted:

Teaching, advising, publishing, marketing, PR, university writing centers/student services. There you go. Really, today's textual society is quite good for the future job prospects of the lowly English major.

I wasn't necessarily challenging the validity of an M.A. program in composition or rhetoric. I was more commenting on my anecdotal experience of having never seen someone with that kind of degree despite the fact that I have seen those types of programs at many institutions.

# ¿ Oct 24, 2011 14:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 1, 2024 15:13

i am the bird: Mar 2, 2005; I SUPPORT ALL THE PREDATORS

Froglin posted:

I work at a university and there are several of us here in academic advising/admissions/student services/writing center/library-type positions with our novelty degrees!

As a soon to be holder of a different novelty degree, I say huzzah!

# ¿ Oct 24, 2011 19:47

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > I'm still an English professor. Shoot.