0

I saw this sentence in the CoGEL(Quirk et al).

15.16 Verbless clause: Wall-to-wall carpets in every room is their dream.

Question: Why is this awkward sentence acceptable? It's obvious that it violates the subject-verb agreement.

The book explains that this sentence may be paraphrased by nominal nonfinite existential clauses as below:

Having wall-to-wall carpets in every room is their dream. (This sentence is perfect, but why does the above example exist with no problem?)

ermanen
  • 62,797
user421993
  • 399
  • 2
    Because it is one dream. – Damila Jul 01 '22 at 16:41
  • 1
    I can see their dream as something they picture, a single image. That picture is their dream. But the term I know is wall-to-wall carpeting, not carpets. – Yosef Baskin Jul 01 '22 at 16:52
  • 1
    Wall-to-wall carpeting in every room is just an ordinary noun phrase. It's the subject of the verb phrase is their dream. Noun phrase subject, followed by verb phrase with predicate noun. What's the problem? – John Lawler Jul 01 '22 at 17:01
  • 2
    Oh I see what you mean. Why isn't the verb are since these are carpets? Right? It's because it's a type of inversion; Their dream is //wall-to-wall carpets in every room. But, I now have a question for JL: Where is the verbless clause? – Lambie Jul 01 '22 at 17:16
  • @Lambie - I like your explanation. / You have to ping JL -- telepathy doesn't always work here. – aparente001 Jul 02 '22 at 02:29
  • Fish and chips is my favourite meal. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 02 '22 at 11:15
  • 1
    Does this answer your question? Agreement With Compound Subjects Joined by And Here, the subject is admittedly not a coordinated noun phrase, but is still notionally singular ([Having] / [Being able to afford] / [Getting] / [Having a house with] ... wall-to-wall carpets is their dream'. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 02 '22 at 11:19
  • 1
    I don't believe it is a duplicate. There is similarity but they are talking about different noun phrases; plus this question delves into verbless clauses as well. They are both useful questions and can stay open. – ermanen Jul 02 '22 at 11:59
  • @Edwin Ashworth, Sorry, your suggested link can't answer the major puzzling point of my question, about whether "wall-to-wall carpets "can be considered as a noun phrase. If it can't, the subject-verb agreement won't be a problem. – user421993 Jul 02 '22 at 16:04
  • 'Chips for every meal are my dream.'??? 'Chips for every meal' is read as a singular-dictating NP. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 02 '22 at 16:08

1 Answers1

3

"Wall-to-wall carpets in every room" is a singular noun phrase in the sentence Wall-to-wall carpets in every room is their dream. The phrase represents a single dream (meaning a desire, a hope for the future) so that's why the verb is "is".

A simpler sentence with the same grammatical structure is:

A trip to Europe is my dream.

What if the sentence was:

Wall-to-wall carpets in every room is expensive.

Now, one might see a blur between a verbless clause (where having is implied) and a noun phrase as the subject-verb disagreement is more clear. However, carpets can mean or be replaced with carpeting so the phrase still strongly suggests a usual noun phrase.

Here is a more complex situation:

Are fast cars in cities really reasonable?

It sounds right, right? The question form tends to have a subject-verb agreement.

Is fast cars in cities really reasonable? [might sound off without using "having"]

and the answer can be:

[Having] fast cars in cities is really reasonable.

Because of this situation, there is an additional category of verbless clauses called nominal verbless clause, which appears to be coined by Quirk (a British linguist) but mentioned as debatable. It can also be described as a noun phrase having the elements of a verbless clause. The version of "A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language" by Quirk et al. (1985) I've found on Google Books has this excerpt:

The nominal verbless clause is a more debatable category than the other nominal clauses. The category seems to be required to account for construtions which, although superficially noun phrases, have some of the semantic and structural characteristics of clauses:

     A friend in need is a friend indeed. [proverb]
     Wall-to-wall carpets in every room is their dream.

ermanen
  • 62,797
  • 1
    Semantically, just about every phrase has "some of the semantic characteristics of clauses". That's why so many deletion rules have been discovered; clauses contain lots of repeated words and predictable grammatical particles that they tend to get chewed up a lot. But always by rule and not randomly. There are no syntactic tests that distinguish wall-to-wall carpets in every room from Byzantine plans for the conference or any other noun phrase with both pre- and post-modifiers. The fact that Quirk felt required to call it a "sentence" doesn't make it one. – John Lawler Jul 02 '22 at 13:13
  • 1
    @JohnLawler Thank you for the input. I believe it is meant as a subordinate clause serving as the subject of the main clause. One could even call it a "subordinate verbless clause" used as a subject. However, they are simply noun phrases and the grammatical structure might depend on the subject complement as well. "Having wall-to-wall carpets in every room" can be called a gerund phrase also functioning as a noun phrase subject. – ermanen Jul 02 '22 at 14:06
  • In the CoGEL, Quirk considered "(having) wall-to-wall carpets " a verbless clause rather than a noun phrase. " Various syntactic features differentiate these constructions from noun phrases: (i)... ; (ii) The verb in [2] ... (related to my question) is singular, which would be difficult to explain if the subject were a plural noun phrase. " ... – user421993 Jul 02 '22 at 15:41
  • 1
    How about He's going to give us some old questions on the exam, but which ones isn't clear.? Note that which ones is plural, while isn't is singular. Try plural aren't and see what happens. Number agreement is quite unimportant; it only happens in the present tense and only with non-modal auxiliaries, and it's often slurred or ignored by more important rules. – John Lawler Jul 02 '22 at 17:40
  • 2
    It would be very easy to simply assume that every phrase contains a clause, with much if not most of the clause machinery removed. This is clearly how relative clauses work, and just about every other kind of clause has a trail of more and more reduced phrasal offshoots with the same meaning. Something like that was at the basis of Abstract Syntax. – John Lawler Jul 02 '22 at 17:43
  • 1
    @user421993 Yes, Quirk considers it as a "nominal verbless clause" but still adds that it is debatable. It is almost like a combination of a noun phrase and a verbless clause. It is not a well-established grammar concept but I've added as a reference. Hopefully my answer and Prof. Lawler's comments help you. He is the expert in grammar though. – ermanen Jul 02 '22 at 18:43
  • @ermanen, Thanks. I knew Prof. John Lawler is a linguistic expert. Of course, I'll take his explanation seriously. Actually, I've accepted it. By the way, I'm glad to give my thanks to all of you. Your constructive comments and answers benefit me a lot. – user421993 Jul 03 '22 at 04:05