1

Nobody from the Police Department and nobody from the Fire Department is/are going to the rescue.

Which verb agreement is grammatical or preferable for other reasons?

Similar examples:

  • Everyone that you know and everyone that you don't know is/are going to be there.
  • Anything you read and anything you hear affects/affect you.

I have read that if parts of a compound subject are joined together by the conjunction and, then one should use a plural verb. But in these examples with indefinite pronouns, I feel like a singular verb should be used.

Another rule on verb agreement with compound subjects: When using or, either/or, or neither/nor, the compound subject might be singular or plural. Generally, if all elements are singular, then the compound subject should be treated as singular.

But again it doesn't cover use of indefinite pronouns with and.

herisson
  • 81,803
Siegfried Zaytsev
  • 334
  • 2
    The copula question is a bit of a red herring, because no one would actually say "Nobody from the PD and* nobody from the FD.." anyway. We'd say or* (and then we'd use is). – Dan Bron Jul 29 '15 at 10:40
  • @Dan What made me ask this question is the following actual sentence I've run into on www.grammar-monster.com. "Nobody behind the till and nobody in the store saw the seagull stealing the crisps." Because the sentence uses a verb in the past tense, it's not clear if a compound subject composed of two indefinite pronouns with their modifiers should be treated as singular or plural. Perhaps I invented a bad example of this construction, but you can see that this construction is used and, moreover, is used by a popular online resource explaining grammar. – Siegfried Zaytsev Jul 29 '15 at 11:14
  • That is a different scenario (though I'll fess up that I'm at a loss to articulate why). Perhaps it would be best if you changed your question to ask about the seagull instead of the rescue? – Dan Bron Jul 29 '15 at 11:16
  • I'm starting to formulate a theory about the difference between the Police Dept example and the seagull example: it boils down to the preposition from. If you said "nobody from the till-minders and nobody from the store, it would sound just as wrong as the PD/FD example. I think it's because the people behind the til and the people in the store are full sets. It's not possible to have someone behind the til who was not present, where's PDs are large and it's possible to have someone from be PD not be present even if some police were present. – Dan Bron Jul 29 '15 at 11:24
  • Same reasoning applies to your anyone you know and anyone you don't know example. That's unidiomatic, but if you change it to everyone you know and everyone you don't know or someone you know and someone you don't know, it's perfectly fine and common. – Dan Bron Jul 29 '15 at 11:25
  • @Dan OK, I'm not looking for an explanation of a particular instance that a grammatical rule covers. I'm looking for a reference to a grammatical rule. If your rule works with seaguls, it should work with everything else. Otherwise it's not a rule. So if we put that sentence with the seagul into present tense, would you say "Nobody behind the till and nobody in the store see the seagull stealing the crisps," or "Nobody behind the till and nobody in the store sees the seagull stealing the crisps"? – Siegfried Zaytsev Jul 29 '15 at 11:27
  • If I had to choose, I'd say sees (see is just impossible), but again it's a bit of a red herring, because no one says such things that way. We'd say "No one behind the till or in the store sees the seagull steal the crisps". We're making one larger group and then excluding all members, rather than excluding all members of two groups individually using a conjunction. That's how we do it. And of course I understand you're along for a rule, but when you're doing so, you have to make sure you understand what the rule is intended to govern, and that you apply it to be same kind of thing. – Dan Bron Jul 29 '15 at 11:31
  • @Dan I changed in the second example anyone to everyone. Thank you for pointing this out. – Siegfried Zaytsev Jul 29 '15 at 11:43
  • @Dan You insist that people don't use [indefinite pronoun + and + indefinite pronoun] constructions, but I didn't invent the example with the seagul: I took it from www.grammar-monster.com. – Siegfried Zaytsev Jul 29 '15 at 11:48
  • No, I don't so insist. And I told you I thought the seagull example was fine and idiomatic; I even suggested you use it instead of your police department example, which isn't. And that's the point: I'm trying to tell you that things which you believe are similar are not, and I could give you a rule which covers one, but still wouldn't cover your invented examples (also, it's in your best interest to be conciliatory, not confrontational nor contentious, with people you're asking for help.) – Dan Bron Jul 29 '15 at 11:51

2 Answers2

4

If you multiply zero by two you get zero. If you multiply nobody by two you still get nobody.

Therefore the answer is:

Nobody from the Police Department and nobody from the Fire Department is going to the rescue.

If you doubt that, consider the following.

Two nobodies are going to the rescue, one from the Police Department and one from the Fire Department.

Now that is possible but it has an entirely different, and very sarcastic, meaning!

EDIT in response to comment

"Everybody from the Police Department and everybody from the Fire Department is/are going to the rescue"?

Let us define 'everybody' to mean 'each individual person'. I think you can see that the singular is still required.

"Each individual person from the Police Department and each individual from the Fire Department is going to the rescue"? (correct)

"Each individual person from the Police Department and each individual from the Fire Department are going to the rescue"? (incorrect)

chasly - supports Monica
  • 37,215
  • What if I say "Everybody from the Police Department and everybody from the Fire Department is/are going to the rescue"? – Siegfried Zaytsev Jul 29 '15 at 12:08
  • Still "is". Think of it like this: Everybody in the { {Police Department} UNION {Fire Department} } or as predicate-ellipsis: Everybody in the Police Department [is going] and everybody in the Fire Department is going.... – TimR Jul 29 '15 at 12:54
0

I agree with chasly from UK's answer saying that singular agreement would be used with a subject like this.

I would compare this to examples like "each X and each Y". We can find sources that say that these take singular agreement, unlike other types of compound subjects: see the answers to Why is "each row and each column" followed by a singular verb in this sentence? and Verbs after Compound Subjects [Everything... and Everyone...].

In fact, SovereignSun's answer to the second question specifically mentions the sentence "Nobody in my house and nobody on my street has been robbed" (citing Ann Batko, When Bad Grammar Happens to Good People. Career Press, 2004).

herisson
  • 81,803