Skip to main content

grammaticality - How does "each" change "are" to "is"?



Relevant: 'Each' with plural or singular verb and What should I use between “triple” vs. “all”?



The answers in the linked question don't quite help me. Specifically, what happens with this case:



My three pens are green.


Each of my three pens are green.


Each of my three pens is green.



Part of the confusion seems to stem from the inclusion of "three":



My pens are green.


Each of my pens are green.


Each pen is green.



There doesn't seem to be a way to rewrite the last example with "three":



Each three pen is green.



The more common application would be:



All three pens are green.



But in the event that I want to say, "Each of my three pens are green" which is correct?


And, in the event that the correct sentence is "each of my three pens is green" why does prepending "each of" to the beginning of "my three pens are green" change the verb?



Answer



Each of my three pens is green is correct.


You're thinking of each of as something that gets tacked onto the beginning of the noun. But when you add each of to my three pens, my three pens becomes the object of the preposition of. Each becomes the head of the subject. So the verb agrees with that, and each is always singular.


Of pretty much always does this:



The rumors were that she would leave him.


The gist of the rumors was that she would leave him.



Some nouns can be plural if they are followed by an of phrase with a plural object:



A number of flaws / A bunch of flaws / A total of ten flaws was found. (iffy)


A number of flaws / A bunch of flaws / A total of ten flaws were found. (ok)



but each isn’t one of them.


The meaning of each X is something like, “This sentence is true for every individual X”. This is clearest when you look at a sentence that is true of each individual, but not necessarily true of the group as a whole:



The roses cost $24. Each rose costs $2.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.