2

a (or the) world of

is defined in Oxford as follows:

A very great deal of.

‘there's a world of difference between being alone and being lonely’

‘a bit of country air will do her the world of good’

I think the world of should be treated differently, so I'd like to focus on a world of.

Although the Oxford Dictionary says a world of means 'a very great deal of' and the phrase should be singular in that meaning, I've seen a world of followed by a plural noun. And when it's followed by a plural noun, I think it often means 'a great number of'.

The problem is, there is conflicting evidence as to whether a world of followed by a plural noun is singular or plural:

  • And with the collapse of those ''walls'', a world of opportunities is opening before us.
    (SADCC at Ten, Address to the Tenth Anniversary Summit, Gaborone, Botswana. 24 August 1990. Published in The Missing Headlines: Selected Speeches, by Emeka Anyaoku)

  • You've not yet developed notions of what you can and can't do (or what you should or shouldn't have done), and a world of opportunities is opening before you. (Confined Minds, by Raychelle Meyers, p. 25)

  • A world of opportunities are out there for you. (The Strength of a Woman: Transformed for Greater Impact, by Claudia L. Roach)

Since 'a world of' here means 'a lot of', I'd think the plural treatment is more frequent, but the opposite seems to be the case. There seem to be more instances of the singular treatment.

So should 'a world of opportunities' be treated as singular?

How about this case?

This morning saw Jay-Z release his surprise new album ‘4:44‘ across all streaming services except Spotify – and a world of fans take note of the freestyle rap by his daughter Blue Ivy Carter. Check out the best reactions and the lyrics below. ("Fans react to Blue Ivy’s freestyle rap on Jay-Z’s ‘4:44’", by Andrew Trendell, NME Music News)

Here, too, 'a world of fans' I think means 'a lot of fans', but is followed by a plural form 'take'. Do you think this is incorrect? Or should it be treated differently? I for one think the plural treatment is correct, because it's the individual fans who take note, not the world itself.

EDIT

This question is not solved by an earlier question, "Is “an ocean of flowers” singular or plural?", where only two answers are provided and no answer is selected.

Moreover, the answer with most votes (2 votes) in that question seems to approve the plural treatment of 'an ocean of flowers', whereas my research about 'a world of opportunities' suggests that the singular treatment is more often than the plural treatment.

Most importantly, the earlier question and answers do not address cases where "an ocean of" is followed by a plural noun denoting people, which is raised as an important point in this question.

JK2
  • 6,553
  • 1
    Related: Is “an ocean of flowers” singular or plural?, A number of questions “has been” or “have been” asked? – herisson Feb 01 '18 at 05:32
  • Yes, I agree. I retracted my vote to close as the OP's edit convinced me that this is a different concept. – Nigel J Feb 01 '18 at 07:49
  • @RobbieGoodwin I'm not sure what you mean by "Worlds, oceans, etc are strictly singular". Aren't worlds and oceans in their plural forms treated as plural? – JK2 Feb 06 '18 at 02:17
  • 1
    Could someone explain how this is different from any singular-or-plural query, please? World, ocean, etc are strictly singular and context can give precedence to their referents and make the whole phrase plural… as we see with teams or companies, countries, gangs or armies. What’s this “the world of should be treated differently” and how could either world be followed by a singular noun? Will we next be looking at whether a world of colour is different from a world of colours? Is a bouquet or bunch grammatically different from a world of flowers… or flora? – Robbie Goodwin Feb 06 '18 at 23:10
  • Sorry, JK2. Is that simpler? – Robbie Goodwin Feb 06 '18 at 23:11
  • @RobbieGoodwin Firstly, 'a bunch of' is well defined in dictionaries along with enough examples.But 'a world of' apparently is not, as clearly stated in my question. Specifically, no dictionary I know of shows an example of 'a world of + plural noun'. Secondly, whether to treat 'a world of + plural noun' is way more complicated than 'a bunch of + plural noun', I think. I'm not even sure whether native speakers have any consensus on the grammatical number of 'a bunch of + plural noun'. – JK2 Feb 07 '18 at 02:00
  • @ JK2 sorry but if you really can’t see how and why “a bunch of” is grammatically identical to “a world of” then there’s little hope for you.

    What’s stated in your Question doesn’t make the Question more penetrating; it merely reveals the inquisitor’s knowledge.

    Specifically, no dictionary should be expected to show an example of “a world of + plural noun”. That would be more complicated than dictionaries are expected to be.

    If you really think “A world of + plural noun” is more complicated than “a bunch of + plural noun” then why not justify that?

    More…

     – Robbie Goodwin Feb 08 '18 at 01:52
  • More… If we put it to a vote right now, d’you really think most readers would support your view that “A world of…” is at all different to “a bunch of…”?

    I don’t doubt most native speakers have little understanding of the grammatical number of “a bunch of + plural noun” and please, what difference d’you think that makes?

     – Robbie Goodwin Feb 08 '18 at 01:55
  • @RobbieGoodwin If you're sure that 'a world of + plural noun' can be treated just like 'a bunch of + plural noun', do you somehow think that 'a bunch of opportunities' can be treated as singular? 'Cause I don't think so. I think 'a bunch of opportunities' should be treated as singular only, but 'a world of opportunities' apparently can be treated as singular as well as plural, as shown in the examples in the OP. – JK2 Feb 08 '18 at 02:12
  • If “a world of (anything)” is different, why can you not explain how or why?

    Of course “a bunch of (anything)” not only can but must be treated as singular, unless a special circumstance requires otherwise.

    Go back to primary school, dump the (anything) and you’re left with what? “A bunch…” and how plural is that?

     – Robbie Goodwin Feb 08 '18 at 02:23
  • @RobbieGoodwin Please don't change the question. I specifically asked about whether 'a bunch of opportunities' can ever be treated as singular. That is, does this work? A bunch of opportunities is opening before us – JK2 Feb 08 '18 at 02:37
  • Uh… please stop trying to avoid the issue. “A bunch of opportunities” should always be treated as singular not because of the possibility that the opportunities might be plural but because obviously, “a bunch (of anything)” is and will always remain singular. – Robbie Goodwin Feb 08 '18 at 02:48
  • 1
    @RobbieGoodwin Really? So, I must be hallucinating to see both Google News ( https://goo.gl/yLcqZ7 ) and Google Books ( https://goo.gl/tdyDj7 ) show a bunch of There are a bunch of opportunities but not a single instance of There is a bunch of opportunities. – JK2 Feb 08 '18 at 03:10
  • Sorry, JK2 and could you take it to chat, or something? Otherwise, can you remember when such topics cropped up at school? – Robbie Goodwin Feb 08 '18 at 21:30
  • There are bunches of opportunities versus There is a bunch of opportunities. Opportunities is not what pluralizes the sentence. It's bunch versus bunches that does. See my answer even though it is downvoted. – Lambie Feb 11 '18 at 18:49
  • Bunch has two possibilities, it can mean MANY and therefore is an adjective , a bunch of people=many people OR it can mean an actual BUNCH in which cases, it depends on whether you say bunch or bunches. A bunch of flowers is pretty. Bunches of flowers are pretty. – Lambie Feb 15 '18 at 20:24
  • 'A world of ...' often takes a noun requiring the 'vast amount of' sense: 'There is a world of difference between these two stances.' However, as M-W {Kids_4}: (4 : a great number or amount 'a world of troubles') agrees, 'a world of' must often be read as 'a great number of', as in 'a world of troubles'. A complication is that 'a world of' is intermediate in ... – Edwin Ashworth Aug 01 '19 at 16:16
  • function between a pure quantifier ('lots of') and a semantically charged collective ('an army of' [protestors, say]). It may function differently in different contexts ('a world of foodstuffs' / 'a world of friends'). Quantifiers are often fixed in the agreement they take. Collective nouns, in the UK, are usually afforded notional agreement. 'A world of' is probably too new in common use to have crystallised into a set expression taking mandatory agreement. I'm happy with both 'a world of opportunities is opening before us' and 'A world of opportunities are out there for you'. – Edwin Ashworth Aug 01 '19 at 16:17
  • @EdwinAshworth Thanks. I suppose your comment is in line with sumelic's answer, right? – JK2 Aug 02 '19 at 07:37
  • Yes; I'm analysing POS (or rather trying to). Even then, 'gradience' (collective noun ... complex quantifier) is hotly debated, there is no consensus about allowable agreement with collective nouns, and the question of which (novel?) complex quantifiers take which agreement needs researching. If one really can’t see how and why 'a bunch of' need not be obviously 'grammatically identical' to 'a world of' then perhaps ELL is the correct site. – Edwin Ashworth Aug 02 '19 at 15:58

4 Answers4

1

I haven't seen specific guidance on this, but I wanted to make an answer post to address something I think was missed in the list of examples in your question.

And with the collapse of those ''walls'', a world of opportunities is opening before us.

Here, it's not necessarily the case that "a world of opportunities" is just being used as a synonymous expression for "a lot of opportunities". The noun world in English can be used metaphorically to talk about a environment or ecosystem: access to a new "world of opportunities" isn't necessarily just access to greater quantities of the same kinds of opportunities that were already available.

The interpretation of "world" as a noun with actual semantic meaning beyond "a great quantity" in this speech is supported by the context. Anyaoku's speech continues in the following way:

Opportunities not just to put a definitive end to the "armed peace" and its incalculable wastage of resources, both human and material, but also opportunities to step up the fight against humanity's enemies, old and new; political instability and local conflicts; hunger and disease; drugs and the deteriorating environment. It promises to be an exciting world but it will not be all sweetness and light.

Note that the word "world" occurs again in a context where it is not followed by "of", and where it unambiguously acts as the head of a singular noun phrase.

I think a good first step when analyzing an expression of the form "a world of [plural noun]" is to check whether it makes sense as a noun phrase headed by the noun "world" (which has metaphorical senses that don't just express quantity). This is basically the same as checking to see whether a phrase like "an ocean of flowers" is being used to refer to a literal ocean, in which case it would obviously take singular agreement: it's a bit more difficult for world because its meaning as a noun is more abstract, but I think the same principle applies to both.

herisson
  • 81,803
-1

According to CMOS 5.9, if you consider 'ocean' to be a mass noun then:
the ocean of something(s) is singular because the number of the phrase is controlled by the mass noun.
an ocean of something(s) is singular or plural depending on something(s) because the number of the phrase is controlled by the object of the preposition.
[I only have a print version of previous edition. It would be nice if someone else could post what the current edition says here.]

In most senses, 'ocean' is a countable, not a mass noun. However, it has all the qualities of a mass noun in 'an ocean of flowers'.

My OALD does not define this sense of 'ocean' to determine whether they assess it as countable or uncountable (a mass noun).

In the absence of a dictionary definition that this particular sense of ocean is countable, I would treat the phrase as plural.

EDIT TO REVERSE:
Examining my OALD more closely, it lists one singular and one countable sense of 'ocean'. I conclude it is countable in this sense and would now treat the phrase as singular.

Ross Murray
  • 1,434
  • 1
    Actually, my question is not about 'an ocean of' or 'the ocean of'. It's about 'a world of + plural noun'. And I'm not sure 'a world of' should be treated exactly like 'an ocean of', especially considering @Nigel J's answer. – JK2 Feb 01 '18 at 07:55
  • I was actually just examining my OALD definition of world. It lists many sense but defines none as uncountable. It has this idiom "a/the ˈworld of difference (informal) used to emphasize how much difference there is between two things, e.g. There's a world of difference between liking someone and loving them." // I am now convinced 'world of' is singular - DESPITE my high level of trust in almost everything I have seen NigelJ post here. – Ross Murray Feb 01 '18 at 08:03
  • There's a world of difference between an "ocean" and a "world". If you're replying to Nigel's post please clearly state so in the answer. Your answer confused me until I read the comments, so that why it's -1 from me – Mari-Lou A Feb 05 '18 at 10:25
  • What pluralizes the verb is not the plural noun after of. It's the first noun: An ocean of [whatever] + singular verb because of an ocean. The noun following of is not what makes it plural. – Lambie Feb 11 '18 at 20:26
  • Except when in "a noun of "[noun] means MANY. Then, the verb is plural. A bunch of, a ton of, a mountain of, etc. etc. etc. – Lambie Feb 15 '18 at 21:41
-1

An ocean is definable. It has boundaries. Therefore an ocean of anything is still singular no matter what is contained within the ocean. An 'ocean of poppies' is therefore singular.

A world is not definable. The earth is, for it is a definable sphere. But 'world' has no boundaries.

The 'whole world' is definable for that concept encompasses everything that exists of that kind that is being discussed. Therefore it is singular.

The 'whole world of artistic endeavour' is singular. It is a single entity.

But 'a world of carpenters were flocking in the auditorium' conveys a plural concept that is not definable by 'world'. Here 'world' is just an expression like 'some' or 'many' or 'a huge number of'.

Nigel J
  • 24,448
  • By 'definable', do you mean 'having a boundary'? If so, I'm not sure why you say 'world' is not definable when you can say "a world". – JK2 Feb 01 '18 at 07:57
  • @NigelJ Can you find any dictionary definitions of any sense of either world or ocean as being "uncountable" or "mass". Without that I would feel compelled to to treat even 'a world of carpenters' as singular DESPITE the apparent common sense in your argument it is not. – Ross Murray Feb 01 '18 at 08:11
  • BTW, I'm planning on upgrading my OED. I'm waiting on a reply from UOP advising which of the OED and Shorter OED are longer. Do you know? There is nowhere I could buy one where I live in Indonesia. – Ross Murray Feb 01 '18 at 08:17
  • @RossMurray Sorry, I cannot answer your question on OED. As a UK citizen I get online access free of charge to OED through our national library service, so I do not have my own copy. – Nigel J Feb 01 '18 at 17:02
  • @RossMurray enquire at your nearest library if they provide acess to the OED to their members. I know that Indonesia has many ex-pats so you might be in luck. The annual subscription fee to the OED online is exorbitant *For an annual rate of $295, you’ll have full unrestricted access to the OED Online. I believe the OED no longer prints [the 20 volume* set](https://www.oupcanada.com/catalog/9780198611868.html). – Mari-Lou A Feb 05 '18 at 10:31
  • @NigelJ, when A world is not definable but the 'whole world' is, could you codify that or is it to be guessed ad hoc, please? – Robbie Goodwin Feb 06 '18 at 23:14
  • The word difference can be countable or uncountable. When a world of [worlds of] is followed by an uncountable meaning noun, the noun cannot be in the plural: lots/a lot of difference is not the same as: a lot of/lots of differences. Two different meanings of the word difference. – Lambie Feb 11 '18 at 18:48
-2

In simlper terms, world of is an idiomatic expression that is a singular noun phrase. However, a plural verb may appear when the elements of the "mass" are referenced rather than the mass-noun per se cf. "the police is vs. the police are".

Kris
  • 37,386
  • 1
    What do you mean by cf. "the police is vs. the police are"? I don't think native speakers would treat "police" as singular with or without "the". – JK2 Feb 05 '18 at 15:33
  • @JK2 See related earlier posts on these same pages. Oh yes, they do. – Kris Feb 07 '18 at 10:19
  • 1
    I don't think so, unless perhaps you speak Indian English. Please see this post: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/96179/why-is-police-referred-to-using-the-singular-pronoun-it-in-this-sentence – JK2 Feb 07 '18 at 10:24