Grammar question

[Cardinal]

Today I made the following post:

"The only common denominator between these two instances is airplanes."

I wrote "is airplanes" because the thing being referred to was singular (denominator). But "is airplanes" makes me sound illiterate, so I changed it to:

"The only common denominator between these two instances are airplanes." I couldn't just change it to "The only common denominator is an airplane" because there isn't one airplane in context, but two.

So here's my conflict: If I turn it around and say, "Airplanes are the common denominator," that obviously sounds a whole lot better than "Airplanes is the common denominator." But when you change it back to the original order, I'm forced to choose between whether the preposition (is, are) should refer to "denominator" or "airplanes."

So which is it, and what's the best way to construct that sentence?

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...t-class-during-shutdown-3.html#post1069586341

 

[Helix]

I think it's awkward but correct.

Common denominator is
Common denominators are

My grammar is a bit rusty, but my mom taught English and pounder proper usage into me from the time that I could say words more complex than "googoo."

 

[lwf]

Today I made the following post:

"The only common denominator between these two instances is airplanes."

I wrote "is airplanes" because the thing being referred to was singular (denominator). But "is airplanes" makes me sound illiterate, so I changed it to:

"The only common denominator between these two instances are airplanes." I couldn't just change it to "The only common denominator is an airplane" because there isn't just one airplane in context, but two.

So here's my conflict: If I turn it around and say, "Airplanes are the common denominator," that obviously sounds a whole lot better than "Airplanes is the common denominator." But when you change it back to the original order, I'm forced to choose between whether the preposition (is, are) should refer to "denominator" or "airplanes."

So which is it, and what's the best way to construct that sentence?

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...t-class-during-shutdown-3.html#post1069586341

Not an expert, but I feel like your original quote "The only common denominator between these two instances is airplanes." is awkward but grammatically correct. I didn't really get into the context, but perhaps a less awkward way to state it would be "the existence of airplanes," or "the presence of airplanes," or "airplane travel?"

 

[Cardinal]

I think it's awkward but correct.

Common denominator is
Common denominators are

My grammar is a bit rusty, but my mom taught English and pounder proper usage into me from the time that I could say words more complex than "googoo."

Not an expert, but I feel like your original quote "The only common denominator between these two instances is airplanes." is awkward but grammatically correct. I didn't really get into the context, but perhaps a less awkward way to state it would be "the existence of airplanes," or "the presence of airplanes," or "airplane travel?"

So in your opinion, "The only common denominator between these two instances is airplanes" would be considered awful but lawful.

 

[Mach]

The only common denominator between these two instances is "airplane".
That looks more consistent to me.

Maybe it results from common denominator being about numbers, which have no plural. If the common denominator of two terms is 10, you say it's ten...doesn't take on a plural.

 

[Cardinal]

The only common denominator between these two instances is "airplane".
That looks more consistent to me.

Maybe it results from common denominator being about numbers, which have no plural. If the common denominator of two terms is 10, you say it's ten...doesn't take on a plural.

"...is an airplane" would sound better than "...is airplane," though you're forced at that point to treat "airplane" as a concept rather than literal things that existed within the discussion's context.

 

[sangha]

Today I made the following post:

"The only common denominator between these two instances is airplanes."

I wrote "is airplanes" because the thing being referred to was singular (denominator). But "is airplanes" makes me sound illiterate, so I changed it to:

"The only common denominator between these two instances are airplanes." I couldn't just change it to "The only common denominator is an airplane" because there isn't one airplane in context, but two.

So here's my conflict: If I turn it around and say, "Airplanes are the common denominator," that obviously sounds a whole lot better than "Airplanes is the common denominator." But when you change it back to the original order, I'm forced to choose between whether the preposition (is, are) should refer to "denominator" or "airplanes."

So which is it, and what's the best way to construct that sentence?

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...t-class-during-shutdown-3.html#post1069586341

The only common denominator between these two instances is that both involve airplanes

or

The only common denominator between these two instances is that both involve travelling by air

 

[Cardinal]

The only common denominator between these two instances is that both involve airplanes

or

The only common denominator between these two instances is that both involve travelling by air

Bam. That's it.

....

 

[Helix]

So in your opinion, "The only common denominator between these two instances is airplanes" would be considered awful but lawful.

I think so, but I'm not sure. I would word it like "Airplanes are the only common denominator in this instance."

 

[Xelor]

Today I made the following post:

"The only common denominator between these two instances is airplanes."

I wrote "is airplanes" because the thing being referred to was singular (denominator). But "is airplanes" makes me sound illiterate, so I changed it to:

"The only common denominator between these two instances are airplanes." I couldn't just change it to "The only common denominator is an airplane" because there isn't one airplane in context, but two.

So here's my conflict: If I turn it around and say, "Airplanes are the common denominator," that obviously sounds a whole lot better than "Airplanes is the common denominator." But when you change it back to the original order, I'm forced to choose between whether the preposition (is, are) should refer to "denominator" or "airplanes."

So which is it, and what's the best way to construct that sentence?

https://tinyurl.com/yc6744am

The grammatically correct sentence is:

"The only common denominator between these two instances is airplanes."
​

Why?

• Subject-verb agreement.
  
  Because the subject with which the verb "to be" (conjugated as "is") must agree is "common denominator." "Common denominator" is singular and third person, so the conjugated form of "to be" must also be singular and third person.

Your "turning around" of the sentence is actually a different sentence, one that has not "common denominator" as its structural (grammatical) subject, but rather "airplanes," which is why "are," the third person plural conjugation of "to be" is correct for that sentence.

Your original sentence doesn't read or sound awkward to me. I suspect what's making your original sentence seem awkward to you is likely your acculturation. Has your most recent decade exposed you preponderantly to mediocre or slovenly speakers and writers? If so, correct grammar such as "none of them is" will sound odd or stilted to you.

Between my childhood and today, among "mainstream" speakers/writers, I've noticed increasing dependence on definite and indefinite articles and decreasing use of verbs. In line with that observation, were you to insert an article, "the" or "an," before "airplanes," you may find the sentence sounding idiomatic to your ear.

You might also change the sentence thus:

• These two instances have in common their airplanes.
• The two instances' common element is the airplanes.
• The two instance share one thing: airplanes.
• The instances' common denominator is airplanes.

As you can see from the above examples, the real problem is that what you apparently wanted to remark upon, the "true" subject, is the nature of the "instances," yet you constructed a sentence that has "common denominator," rather than "instances," as its structural subject. Mind you, it's not that readers won't understand your meaning using the sentence you composed; they surely will. It's that getting subject-verb agreement (and many other grammatical elements) right is a hell of a lot easier when one makes the "true" subject be a sentence's structural subject.

NOTE:
My presumption in the final paragraph above derives from my perception that outside of math topics, people rarely have something to say about common denominators, but people often use the term "common denominator" adjectivally. Adjectivally using "common denominator" (which is indeed a noun) appears to your original intent; however, the structure of the sentence forced your adjectival noun to act grammatically as the noun subject of the sentence rather than as a modifier of "instances."
​

Solution Suggestion for Future Use:

Adhere to the basic grammatical structure of:

True subject, followed by verb, followed by object of the predicate, followed by indirect object of the predicate.​

From there, you can expand on the sentence by adding in dependent clauses, parenthetical thoughts, simple or compound modifiers, etc., demarking them as needed with the appropriate punctuation.

For example:

• Basic structure: "The instances' common denominator is airplanes."
• Same structure in a more complex sentence: "The instances' common denominator, though they used specifically different equipment and occurred in different temporal and geographic contexts, is airplanes, the technical differences among the planes -- speed, agility, range, etc. -- being irrelevant to the comparison because in each instance, sans the planes, the Allies would not have obtained air superiority.

 

[Xelor]

So in your opinion, "The only common denominator between these two instances is airplanes" would be considered awful but lawful.

I cannot speak for the other member. I can say confidently that your original sentence having "is airplanes" is lawful and not at all awful.

 

[nota bene]

I think so, but I'm not sure. I would word it like "Airplanes are the only common denominator in this instance."

But you were correct: The construction offered originally is "denominator," which requires "is."

 

[Helix]

But you were correct: The construction offered originally is "denominator," which requires "is."

Thanks! The slight awkwardness of the sentence made me question myself.

 

[nota bene]

Thanks! The slight awkwardness of the sentence made me question myself.

The more distance between subject and verb, the more likely the chance of a disagreement/screwup. Here is an example:

One in four Americans are sickened by food-borne illnesses and 5,000 die each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

It's not "four Americans are"; it's "One...is."

"We're told the victim required medical attention afterward...but the extent of her injuries are unclear." Again, it's not "injuries are" but, rather, "extent is."

 

[PirateMk1]

The grammatically correct sentence is:

"The only common denominator between these two instances is airplanes."
​

Why?

• Subject-verb agreement.
  
  Because the subject with which the verb "to be" (conjugated as "is") must agree is "common denominator." "Common denominator" is singular and third person, so the conjugated form of "to be" must also be singular and third person.

Your "turning around" of the sentence is actually a different sentence, one that has not "common denominator" as its structural (grammatical) subject, but rather "airplanes," which is why "are," the third person plural conjugation of "to be" is correct for that sentence.

Your original sentence doesn't read or sound awkward to me. I suspect what's making your original sentence seem awkward to you is likely your acculturation. Has your most recent decade exposed you preponderantly to mediocre or slovenly speakers and writers? If so, correct grammar such as "none of them is" will sound odd or stilted to you.

Between my childhood and today, among "mainstream" speakers/writers, I've noticed increasing dependence on definite and indefinite articles and decreasing use of verbs. In line with that observation, were you to insert an article, "the" or "an," before "airplanes," you may find the sentence sounding idiomatic to your ear.

You might also change the sentence thus:

• These two instances have in common their airplanes.
• The two instances' common element is the airplanes.
• The two instance share one thing: airplanes.
• The instances' common denominator is airplanes.

As you can see from the above examples, the real problem is that what you apparently wanted to remark upon, the "true" subject, is the nature of the "instances," yet you constructed a sentence that has "common denominator," rather than "instances," as its structural subject. Mind you, it's not that readers won't understand your meaning using the sentence you composed; they surely will. It's that getting subject-verb agreement (and many other grammatical elements) right is a hell of a lot easier when one makes the "true" subject be a sentence's structural subject.

NOTE:
My presumption in the final paragraph above derives from my perception that outside of math topics, people rarely have something to say about common denominators, but people often use the term "common denominator" adjectivally. Adjectivally using "common denominator" (which is indeed a noun) appears to your original intent; however, the structure of the sentence forced your adjectival noun to act grammatically as the noun subject of the sentence rather than as a modifier of "instances."
​

Solution Suggestion for Future Use:

Adhere to the basic grammatical structure of:

True subject, followed by verb, followed by object of the predicate, followed by indirect object of the predicate.​

From there, you can expand on the sentence by adding in dependent clauses, parenthetical thoughts, simple or compound modifiers, etc., demarking them as needed with the appropriate punctuation.

For example:

• Basic structure: "The instances' common denominator is airplanes."
• Same structure in a more complex sentence: "The instances' common denominator, though they used specifically different equipment and occurred in different temporal and geographic contexts, is airplanes, the technical differences among the planes -- speed, agility, range, etc. -- being irrelevant to the comparison because in each instance, sans the planes, the Allies would not have obtained air superiority.

:yt I do believe you have explained things. May as well end the thread. Good job.

 

[TheParser]

But when you change it back to the original order, I'm forced to choose between whether the preposition (is, are) should refer to "denominator" or "airplanes."

Just in case some English language learners are reading this, you probably meant "verb" when you wrote "preposition."

 

[Cardinal]

Just in case some English language learners are reading this, you probably meant "verb" when you wrote "preposition."

Yes, that is correct.

 

[zyzygy]

I will put my very pedantic hat on and say that it should be aeroplanes.

 

[bongsaway]

Today I made the following post:

"The only common denominator between these two instances is airplanes."

I wrote "is airplanes" because the thing being referred to was singular (denominator). But "is airplanes" makes me sound illiterate, so I changed it to:

"The only common denominator between these two instances are airplanes." I couldn't just change it to "The only common denominator is an airplane" because there isn't one airplane in context, but two.

So here's my conflict: If I turn it around and say, "Airplanes are the common denominator," that obviously sounds a whole lot better than "Airplanes is the common denominator." But when you change it back to the original order, I'm forced to choose between whether the preposition (is, are) should refer to "denominator" or "airplanes."

So which is it, and what's the best way to construct that sentence?

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...t-class-during-shutdown-3.html#post1069586341

Are is used when plural.

 

[Cardinal]

Are is used when plural.

Thanks.

 

[Rosie1]

IMHO, denominator is the word that determines "is" instead of "are", rather than airplanes.

 

[Rexedgar]

Did another poster call you out or are you second guessing yourself?

 

[Hawkeye10]

Did another poster call you out or are you second guessing yourself?

He is going above and beyond the call of duty to produce quality.






Please......Just Cheer.










:applaud

 

[uptower]

Today I made the following post:

"The only common denominator between these two instances is airplanes."

I wrote "is airplanes" because the thing being referred to was singular (denominator). But "is airplanes" makes me sound illiterate, so I changed it to:

"The only common denominator between these two instances are airplanes." I couldn't just change it to "The only common denominator is an airplane" because there isn't one airplane in context, but two.

So here's my conflict: If I turn it around and say, "Airplanes are the common denominator," that obviously sounds a whole lot better than "Airplanes is the common denominator." But when you change it back to the original order, I'm forced to choose between whether the preposition (is, are) should refer to "denominator" or "airplanes."

So which is it, and what's the best way to construct that sentence?

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...t-class-during-shutdown-3.html#post1069586341

You were correct the first time. 'Demonator' is the subject (actually 'the only common denominator' in its entirety); the verb (sorry, not a preposition) is 'be'. After a third person singular (he, she or it) like 'denominator', that makes it 'is'.

 

[Cardinal]

Did another poster call you out or are you second guessing yourself?

The latter. Unless you break Skitt’s Law most people aren’t going to jump down your throat for misspellings or grammatical errors.