| |
If there is one error of writing that exposes a writer as a chronic grammatical ignoramus, it is that of Subject-Verb Disagreement, which we may abbreviate as S-VD. The reason for this assertion is threefold. First Fold: Sentence is the single most important unit of grammar, and, indeed, of writing as a whole. Second Fold: Every sentence has, as its two essential parts, a subject and a predicate. Third Fold: Every subject must agree with its predicate, qua its verb.
You see, many people do write well, but not all who do so know what they are doing echoes of that verse in the Bible, where Jesus said: “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” The point here is: Doing something without knowing what you are doing qualifies you as an ignoramus.
Nothing, perhaps, is more fundamental to writing than grammar, but many people can write well without really knowing the fundamentals of grammar, as such. This is not an indictment; it is just an acknowledgement of what may be referred to as man's natural linguistic endowment. But the unfortunate thing about this natural ability of ours is that it does not let us appreciate when we land into grammatical pitfalls.
Whenever we commit the error of S-VD, we violate what is arguably the first principle of grammar, which states that the subject of a sentence must agree with its predicate, in the capacity of its verb, hence, the shorthand for this principle, S-VA: Subject-Verb Agreement. The paramountcy of this principle makes it the first law of grammar, arguably.
Since subject-verb agreement is the first law of grammar, subject-verb disagreement is, ipso facto, the first egregious error of grammar. This is why, deliberately or otherwise, no author or teacher of grammar who knows his onions fails to underscore the principle of subject-verb agreement, or to emphasise the imperative of avoiding the error of subject-verb disagreement. Yet, S-VD remains one of the commonest errors you can find daily in the media. It is more difficult though to detect cases of S-VD that exist in sentences that are in the body of articles than those that exist in headlines.
The following instance of S-VD was on bold display in the headline of the news story, “Reps resists pressure to pass 2009 budget.” The news story appeared in the Daily Sun of December 19. 2009. One wonders how this egregious error can slip through the eyes of the editor of the newspaper, assuming that the subeditor or the person who cast the headline does not know what s/he was doing. The error is more improbable since nothing stands between the subject and the verb, that is, “Reps” and “resists,” respectively. Clearly, “reps” is a plural noun and must have a verb that agrees with it in number, “resist.”
Compare the nature of the S-VD in that sentence - a proximate one, if we may give it a name - with the nature of the one in this sentence: “PLANS for the use of military force to remove Ivory Coast controversial President, Laurent Gbagbo, now depends on Nigeria's President Goodluck Jonathan.” This is the lead of a news story in The Guardian of January 17, 2011, with the headline: “UN, US Press Nigeria On Forceful Removal Of Gbagbo in Ivory Coast.”
The simple subject of that sentence, of course, is the plural noun, “plans.” It follows that its verb should also be plural, but, instead, what we have is “depends.” The main difference between the S-VD in this sentence and that in the previous one is that 15 words separate the simple subject from its verb; hence, we may call it a distal S-VD. The long distance between the controlling noun in the subject and the verb of the predicate is not an excuse for committing the error, but the writer can, perhaps, plead memory lapse because of it a plea that cannot be made at all for the case of a proximate S-VD.
That leads us to the general rule of the thumb for checkmating S-VD: “Keep your eyes on the ball,” where “ball” refers to the number or person of the controlling noun that is the subject of the sentence. If you don't mind the popular local parlance, the writer, must shine his or her eyes very well, once the controlling noun of the subject of a sentence has been written, and s/he must not lose sight of it until s/he has written its corresponding verb. In one word: Stay focused!
Although the nature of the next example of S-VD is different from that of the previous two, it too has been caused by the writer's lack of focus, his/her failure to “shine” his/her eyes very well, so to say! The sentence appears in a news story in the August 19, 2010 edition of Leadership Nigeria, with the headline: “JonathanCan't Run on PDP's Platform Ciroma.” It reads: “According to him, Jonathan has the constitutional right to contest next year's presidential election but certain provisions in the PDP constitution which zoned the presidency to the north has knocked him out of the race.”
The word causing the S-VD in that sentence, of course, is “has.” To determine why this verb is in error, we may ask ourselves the question: “What is the subject of the sentence, the essential noun, that is? To be sure, the sentence is: “…certain provisions of the PDP constitution which zoned the presidency to the north has knocked him out of the race.” That being the case, the simple subject of the sentence is, “certain provisions,” or, simpler still, “provisions.” What then could have misled the writer to use a verb that is singular?
Well, if you look at the sentence closely, you would see that it is the word “constitution.” The writer has removed his/her eyes from the ball, which is the plural noun, “provisions, and has transferred his focus to another noun that is a complement of the subject, which happens to be in singular. This S-VD is case of misplaced focus, which is but one form of false attraction, a common cause of S-VD.
Here is another form of S-VD that is caused by false attraction: “The former lecturer said the academic sanctuary epitomized by the universities were today plagued by the same ills of the larger society….” The sentence comes from “Yar'Adua blasts lecturers,” a news story in the Sunday Sun of December 21, 2008.
We may argue that the verb in error in that sentence, that is, “were,” is falsely attracted to its proximate plural noun, “universities.” But “universities” is certainly not the subject of the sentence. The simple subject which should agree with the verb is “academic sanctuary,” a singular noun.
So, what has happened? Simple, if we try to look closely. The stream of words following “sanctuary” and ending with “universities,” is nothing but a parenthetical phrase. The words simply add extra information to the noun, “sanctuary.” Unfortunately, the last word in the parenthesis has exerted an undue pull on the verb that is supposed to follow the proper noun that defines the subject of the sentence.
See what happens to the sentence when we introduce two commas: “The former lecturer said (that) the academic sanctuary, epitomized by the universities, were today plagued by the same ills of the larger society….” Perhaps, if the writer had employed these commas, s/he might have seen that “universities” is not the element that should agree with the verb, but “sanctuary.” That way, the S-VD might have been checkmated, for s/he would then have rightly written the sentence, thus: “the former lecturer said that the academic sanctuary, epitomized by the universities, was today plagued by the same ills of the larger society….”
All said, whether an error of S-VD is proximate, distal, or parenthetical, it could be avoided if we keep our eyes on the ball - if we do not lose our focus, granted that we know the first law of grammar, to wit: The subject of a sentence must agree with its predicate, in the capacity of the controlling noun (of the subject) and the corresponding verb (of the predicate). Knowledge underpins competence. The writer who can checkmate S-VD at all times is a competent craftsman, indeed: a person who knows what s/he is doing.
|