16

I live in Bangkok and on the intercom in the subway they constantly say Smoking, drinking and eating are not allowed. To me it sounds weird. I’d say Smoking, drinking and eating is not allowed.

Because you would normally say It’s not allowed to smoke, drink or eat.

Can someone explain what is the grammatically “correct” way to say this? And maybe explain why I find it so awkward.

herisson
  • 81,803
dan-klasson
  • 332
  • 1
  • 2
  • 10
  • 2
    Another equivalent- No eating, drinking or smoking allowed. – adityasrivastav Dec 02 '14 at 15:16
  • Yeah to me that sentence makes sense. The "are" not so much. Maybe because it's normally phrased differently. – dan-klasson Dec 02 '14 at 15:18
  • 1
    Compare “Drinking and drinking is forbidden” with “Drinking and driving are forbidden.” The normal signage would read “No smoking, drinking, or eating” — or for the lexically challenged, “ ⃠ ⃠”. – tchrist Dec 02 '14 at 16:10
  • 1
    In summary, 'it' is singular while 'eating, drinking, and eating' is a group of three things, so plural verbs would generally be appropriate for the latter. – reirab Dec 02 '14 at 17:16

4 Answers4

33

Smoking, drinking and eating is not allowed

would mean that if you try to smoke, drink and eat all at the same time, as one activity (good luck with that!), then that activity is not allowed.

But smoking, drinking or eating (as separate activities) would be ok.

Smoking, drinking and eating are not allowed

means that neither smoking, nor drinking, nor eating, is allowed. Collectively they are not allowed.

So the subway authorities probably do intend the latter meaning, although I'm just guessing.

Let's do a little research:

Bangkok subway rules

Aha. Neither smoking nor eating nor drinking is allowed. All three of them are forbidden.

Littering is also forbidden (littering is one action - use 'is'), as are large belongings (the belongings themselves are plural - use 'are').

The possession of balloons is also forbidden (the balloons themselves are plural but 'possession' is a single action - use 'is').

It seems particularly harsh to completely forbid 'sitting'. Is this a mistranslation of 'sitting on the floor'? Or does this sign apply only to an area without seats (such as a corridor)?

A E
  • 6,612
  • 2
    I wasn't the one who downvoted you in case you were wondering. Why the downvote anonymous? – dan-klasson Dec 02 '14 at 15:15
  • Don't worry about it @dan-klasson! I'm not. ;) Thanks though. – A E Dec 02 '14 at 15:15
  • 1
    @A.E.+1 Cogent.you summed it up pretty well. – adityasrivastav Dec 02 '14 at 15:22
  • No worries @dan-klasson. If you want to be picky with the subway company though, 'Restriction' doesn't look right. These look to me like 'restrictions'. It looks like there's another word above it though, maybe that changes the meaning. – A E Dec 02 '14 at 15:37
  • Re picture - Where on Earth are all these activities forbidden ? – Centaurus Dec 02 '14 at 15:38
  • @Centaurus, the Bangkok subway of course! With so many restrictions it's not surprising that OP has been mulling them over. – A E Dec 02 '14 at 15:39
  • 1
    @AE: TIT (This Is Thailand). You get used to it after a while. – dan-klasson Dec 02 '14 at 15:42
  • 2
    @Centaurus: Yeah they are clearly party poopers. We actually have the same sign in my home country. But here in Bangkok they have automatic gates, making it impossible to commit suicide by jumping onto the tracks. So not sure why they hate on balloons so much. – dan-klasson Dec 02 '14 at 15:43
  • 1
    But the funniest part of the MRT (subway system of Bangkok) is that they make you walk through this security gate, similar to what they have at the airport. And when it emits a peep, the don't search you, or check your bag or belongings, they only shine a flash light at you. Every time I pass them I think they've gotta have the most pointless job on this planet. – dan-klasson Dec 02 '14 at 15:51
  • 2
    @dan-klasson: I noticed balloons are banned in the station at Schiphol airport too. They said it was something to do with the overhead power. I assume that if someone loses one into the ceiling, they can't just leave a free-floating piece of metal foil up there, where it might get between two wires and bridge around the insulator. Or something like that. Anyway they have to stop everything while they fetch it down. – Steve Jessop Dec 02 '14 at 16:41
  • Oh Schiphol. I used to work in Amsterdam. I would take the train by Schiphol everyday. Anyways, in the subway in Bangkok there are doors that are closed and only opens when the train arrives. There is no way in hell a balloon can make it on to the tracks, and the trains are not even powered by overhead electricity. – dan-klasson Dec 02 '14 at 18:15
  • I've been wondering about how and when I can use photos from the internet in posts. Do SE have the rights top this photo? is it a problem if they don't? Or is it your photo? i.e. not from the web? – Araucaria - Him Dec 03 '14 at 02:10
  • According to your explanation, eating AND drinking simultaneously is not forbidden :) – domokun Dec 03 '14 at 09:14
  • @Domokun Quick, get a cup of soup! – Zibbobz Dec 03 '14 at 14:25
10

There is nothing grammatically wrong with the sentence. It is equivalent to:

"They are not allowed."

In which the verb is plural because the subject is plural.

Gary's Student
  • 6,747
  • i like this answer best. the distinction here is singular v. plural. we use is for singular and are for plural. that's all that needs to be said. – user428517 Dec 02 '14 at 22:02
1

Smoking, drinking and eating are not allowed.

Three separate activities, none of which are allowed.

Smoking, drinking and eating is not allowed.

Three activities which you are not allowed to do at the same time. But doing just one or two is okay.

The "are" makes them a plural group, and the "is" makes them a single unit.

Also, the signs/announcements are using the passive voice. Saying "It is not allowed to smoke, drink, or eat" makes me wonder what "It" is. Is it a bear? An elephant? What isn't allowed to smoke, drink or eat? Active voice would say, "You are not allowed to smoke, eat, or drink" but "Smoking, drinking and eating are not allowed" is fine.

miltonaut
  • 2,097
  • 4
    Why the downvote people? If you downvote, please explain why. – dan-klasson Dec 02 '14 at 15:37
  • 3
    None of which is allowed. None = not one. – TimR Dec 02 '14 at 18:18
  • 1
    @TRomano the plural verb is also acceptable and has been so for a long time http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1425/none-as-plural-indefinite-pronoun – Mari-Lou A Dec 02 '14 at 19:35
  • 1
    Acceptable to whom? – TimR Dec 02 '14 at 19:40
  • 1
    @TRomano To native speakers mostly :) – Mari-Lou A Dec 02 '14 at 19:53
  • @Mari-Lou A: I think there's a still-viable distinction to be made between "none" in the sense all of them were not... (None of them were wearing gloves despite the freezing cold.) and "none" in the sense "not a single one of those things" (Smoking, cussing, spitting, swearing, gambling: none of those things is allowed in the typical convent.) – TimR Dec 02 '14 at 19:57
  • I believe the following phrase: But doing just one or two is okay needs to be recast, it sounds as if you are saying it is permissible to do one or two of these actions but not all three together. – Mari-Lou A Dec 02 '14 at 20:25
  • 1
    There is absolutely nothing wrong with "it is not allowed to smoke, drink, or eat", even if it is the passive voice. And saying "you are not allowed to smoke, drink, or eat" is still the passive voice (the "are" in "are not allowed" should be a tip-off). Active voice would be "the authorities do not allow you to smoke, drink, or eat". – Peter Shor Dec 02 '14 at 22:47
  • @TRomano: I would say "Smoking, cussing, spitting, swearing, gambling: none of these things are allowed in the typical convent." Alternately I might say "Smoking, cussing, spitting, swearing, gambling: all of these things are disallowed in the typical convent." – Tim Sparkles Dec 03 '14 at 00:31
  • Alternately I might say "Smoking, cussing, spitting, swearing, gambling: each of these things is disallowed in the typical convent." – Tim Sparkles Dec 03 '14 at 00:33
  • @PeterShor That definitely sounds ungrammatical to my B.E. ear. In fact it's majorly aaaarrrggh. Who won't allow it to smoke? It sounds absolutely like someone's trying to strangle a language student whilst they're trying to put a sentence together to my Brit ear - btw, I'm a major anti-prescriptivist, that's just how my ear finds it ... – Araucaria - Him Dec 03 '14 at 02:17
  • How is "it is not allowed to" any different from "it is forbidden to"? – Peter Shor Dec 03 '14 at 03:16
  • 2
    I would assume any downvotes are from the last paragraph expressing an issue with the sentence 'It is not allowed...'. That's the reason I didn't upvote. 'It is not allowed...' followed by a list of things means that each of those things is not allowed. To smoke is not allowed, to drink is not allowed, to eat is not allowed. – DCShannon Dec 03 '14 at 21:29
  • @DCShannon - Okay, yeah, I see that. I was trying to keep my answer simple and show how it could be confusing without going into a longer explanation about ambiguity. Guess I should have gone for the longer answer. – miltonaut Dec 05 '14 at 02:30
0

Sawat-dee khrapp, khun Dan! English language signage in Bangkok & the rest of Thailand takes on mirth-inducing proportions for the uninitiated. The examples the OP cites on the MRT (subway) are tame, but otherwise largely correct, in comparison to some of the howlers one sees on the sois and byways of upper & lower Sukhumvit. Gone, but not forgotten, is the travel agent whose signage proclaimed in upper & lower cases, RIP Travel. I could never figure out if this was a subliminal warning to "Watch it, we are ripoff merchants", or some kind of morbid salutation prior to a flight out of 'old swampy' at Suvarnabhumi

Best of all was the signage in a loo at an internationally renowned hospital that requested, "Broken Man & Imbeciles: Summon help. Pull red cord". As we say in Thailand, TIT - This is Thailand!

Peter Point
  • 3,949