1

It seems correct to write "A host of tools exists..." or "A range of tools exists...", i.e. the verb reflects the fact that you are referring to one collective noun. But, if I want to continue to talk about that collection of things, it often seems natural to say ". They aim to solve..." or ", which attempt to model...", i.e. now I am referring to the capabilities/intentions of the things within the collection. Which is strictly correct? And putting strict grammatical rules aside, which is an English speaker most likely to say?

a) "A host of tools exist, which aim to solve..."

b) "A host of tools exists, which aims to solve..."

c) "A host of tools exists, which aim to solve..."

My instinct is to avoid the construction and write "Several tools exist, with the aim of solving..."

co323
  • 11
  • "Several" denotes a far lesser multiplicity than "a host". ("a great many") – LPH Jul 20 '23 at 11:13
  • You can't say "the intentions of the things"; what you mean is "what the things are intended for". – LPH Jul 20 '23 at 11:19
  • Does this answer your question? Collective nouns with plural verbs: the 'American practice/s' versus the 'British practice/s' I'd use 'A host of tools exist which aim to solve ...'; notional agreement is very common in the UK. 'A host of' is probably better classed as a fuzzy quantifier rather than a traditional collective noun, similar to 'a lot of [+ plural count usage]', and a plural verb form is invariably used with the latter. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 20 '23 at 11:27
  • If you're welded to formal agreement (' "host" is a singular usage, so takes a singular verb form') a convenient rewrite is 'A host of tools exist whose aim is to solve...'. // I wouldn't use the comma before 'which' or 'whose' as the relative structure (an extraposition from NP in these sentences) is classifying rather than merely supplemental. //// On notional v formal agreement, see also The 90s were or was the best decade ever? – Edwin Ashworth Jul 20 '23 at 11:40
  • @EdwinAshworth 'Extraposition from NP' makes no sense. If the antecedent is deemed to be the nominal "host of tools", then it's a case of 'postposing of a relative clause'. Extraposition, both kinds, has "it" as dummy subject or object. – BillJ Jul 20 '23 at 13:34
  • @BillJ Many linguists use the term, misnomer or not. ELU is not the paramilitary branch of CGEL. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 20 '23 at 13:51
  • @EdwinAshworth So explain the process of extraposition in the example in question. – BillJ Jul 20 '23 at 16:28
  • @BillJ Look at how J Lawler uses the term at [In which 'Englishes' are 'distant' relative clauses acceptable?](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/603168/in-which-englishes-are-distant-relative-clauses-acceptable/603256#603256_. I'm sure he's addressed your insistence on CGEL's declination of the term elsewhere. Ross certainly used it, for one. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 21 '23 at 10:57
  • @EdwinAshworth I was hoping that you would explain it. I reject Lawler's analysis. Extraposition always has dummy "it" as subject or object. – BillJ Jul 21 '23 at 13:55
  • This is a matter of terminology. Collins, with no doubt a proficient usage board, gives the broader definition: 'extraposition [in BrE] ... 2. [transformational grammar] a rule that moves embedded clauses out to the end of the main clause, converting, for example, A man who will help has just arrived into A man has just arrived who will help' Using a stipulative definition does not mandate its acceptance as universally binding. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 21 '23 at 14:29
  • @EdwinAshworth Dictionaries for grammar? 'Postposing' is defined as ‘putting an element at or near the end of the clause rather than in the earlier position that would be its default place’. Your last example matches that definition perfectly: the relative clause “who will help” is postposed from immediately after the antecedent “man” to the end of the matrix clause. It is not an extraposition construction. – BillJ Jul 21 '23 at 16:29
  • @BillJ Dictionaries for how terms are widely used. Individual grammars tend to use what are sometimes redefining (even hijacking) stipulative definitions. The Wikipedia article on extraposition sees it-extraposition as one example among several: 'The term "extraposition" is also used to denote similar structures in which "it" appears....' The article cites various grammarians (without adding any caveat about their avoidance of the here disputed use of the term) who researched the concepts. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 21 '23 at 17:03
  • @EdwinAshworth Understanding the postposing analysis of the example in question is easier that understanding what Lawler calls 'Extraposition from NP'. Note that in his answer he says “For relative clauses only restrictives can participate. That’s incorrect since postposed supplementary (non-restrictive) relatives are sometimes found. – BillJ Jul 21 '23 at 17:26

0 Answers0