A quick question

[desperance]

We (in the UK. at least) have a phrase, "all manner of ways". Clearly it means "all kinds of ways", and that "manner" is a presumptive plural; but it is expressed in the singular form. Which being so, is it correct to treat it as a singular - "There was all manner of ways" - or as a plural - "There were all manner of ways"?

(cross-posted to cranky_editors)

Comments

[time-freak.livejournal.com]

Sorry, this is unrelated. It appears you are speaking at my Uni's Lit festival very soon... if I were to be there we have to meet up.

[desperance.livejournal.com]

Is true. I'm running a workshop on flash fiction (a subject about which I know almost nothing, but hey...). 10.30 till 12.00, I think? Something like that. If you'd like to spend time afterwards, I have nothing else planned.

[shewhomust.livejournal.com]

Is this a public event (ie should it be on your web site?)?

Anything else you should be telling me about your schedule?

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Plural. I don't know why. It just sounds better.

[hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com]

*votes for were*

[khaybee.livejournal.com]

Were. All of the different ways implied must be dealt with.

[carandol.livejournal.com]

I'd think, just from what sounds right, rather than looking up the grammatical rules, that the plural is right. I think the plural applies to the "ways" not the "manner".

"There were all manner of people waiting for the bus" sounds right; "There was all manner of people waiting for the bus" sounds wrong.

[desperance.livejournal.com]

I think the plural applies to the "ways" not the "manner".

See, technically it oughtn't. It always sounds perverse, but the correct form would be "There was a lot of things", not "There were a lot of things"; the verb belongs to the lot, not the things. Like "There was a box of things". I only hesitate this time because that "manner" is an implicit plural anyway, it just gets expressed in a singular form (and I don't know why).

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

That's why I say, "There were lots of things."

[desperance.livejournal.com]

Yup. That would cover it. *g*

[mantichore.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but the way I see it, "a lot" is not a definite object in itself, it's a singular implying and relaying to a collective, while "a box" exists in itself. So you can't refer to the one, but only to what it leads to, while you can refer to the other, even to the point of not mentioning what is inside that box. Which you can't do with "a lot".

[desperance.livejournal.com]

Nice - but it might be an auction-lot or other defined set. If I want to be picky. And I do.

[mantichore.livejournal.com]

Naaah. An auction lot is not a definite, tangible object. It's a concept. Hence, the same remark applies. :-P

[desperance.livejournal.com]

Nah. An auction lot is absolutely definite. "This is Lot 23, and it consists of a box of things." It is an inarguably singular lot of things. You could equally well call it a set of things, which would be equally singular.

[mantichore.livejournal.com]

Hm. I agree it's singular, which invalidates my claim. But I don't agree it's something tangible. You can't brandish about a set nor a lot, the way you do a box. So it's a definition, not a material object.

[hobbitblue.livejournal.com]

A vote for were here, from the way it sounds rather than any grammar rule, but is there not a way of rejigging the sentence to avoid the problem in the first place?

[desperance.livejournal.com]

Almost certainly, there is. I will turn my penitent mind to it, as soon as I've stopped wasting other people's time with the original problem...

[hobbitblue.livejournal.com]

O, I sorry to be practical.. this way is *much* more fun for sure! :)

[desperance.livejournal.com]

*icon love*

(And if I hadn't asked, no one would have pointed me to the Song of Solomon, which is just the best kind of authority; maybe I'll keep it after all...?)

[hobbitblue.livejournal.com]

*grin* I find it very useful :)

Oh that's a good 'un, though my theology/language geek mind immediately said "aha, which translation" :>

[desperance.livejournal.com]

King James, surely? I haven't checked, but it hath the cadence...

[wolfinthewood.livejournal.com]

I think 'all manner of' operates like an adverbial phrase qualifying 'ways'; the verb should be plural to agree with 'ways'. Anyway, that is the closest I can get to figuring out the grammar.

The form is easier: here's a good citation that establishes that the verb agrees with the noun qualified by 'all manner of':

'The mandrakes give a smell, and at our gates are all manner of pleasant fruits, new and old, which I have laid up for thee, O my beloved.' – Song of Solomon 7:13

[desperance.livejournal.com]

Oh, yea. That settles me. I ain't gonna argue with Solomon, neither with his Song. Thank you...

(Funny, I have never before considered the smell of a mandrake...)

[carandol.livejournal.com]

Hey, that's what *I* said! Does that mean I'm as wise as Solomon?

[wolfinthewood.livejournal.com]

It's possible. But are you as rich as he was?

'And king Solomon passed all the kings of the earth in riches and wisdom' – 2 Chronicles 9:22

[carandol.livejournal.com]

Damn, nowhere near as rich. So, was he as rich as Croesus? Is there a Top Trumps Rich Bastards we could check with?

[desperance.livejournal.com]

Well, Croesus was the king of Lydia (lucky Lydia!), and perhaps therefore Solomon passed him - but he postdated Solomon, and I'm not sure if the verse wants itself to be read as contemporary or if we are to take it as standing outside the conventional restraints of chronology. Which, ironically, has been said about Croesus...

[time-freak.livejournal.com]

I would go with 'There are all manner of ways'

[desperance.livejournal.com]

So would everyone who's commented - and so will I, now. With the authority of King James behind me (see previous comment), where else could I, dare I go...?