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
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?"
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.
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
So in your opinion, "The only common denominator between these two instances is airplanes" would be considered awful but lawful.
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
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."
But you were correct: The construction offered originally is "denominator," which requires "is."
Thanks! The slight awkwardness of the sentence made me question myself.
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:
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.
- 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.
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.
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."
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.
Did another poster call you out or are you second guessing yourself?
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
Did another poster call you out or are you second guessing yourself?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?