Grammar Question

[mythtrav16]

Little help, please. Which of these two sentences is better?

Lincoln, Washington, Roosevelt; all three were America's President?

Lincoln, Washington, Roosevelt; all three were America's Presidents?

 

[oggbashan]

Little help, please. Which of these two sentences is better?

Lincoln, Washington, Roosevelt; all three were America's President?

Lincoln, Washington, Roosevelt; all three were America's Presidents?

Reword it to avoid:

Lincoln, Washington, and Roosevelt, all three were President of America.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The second one, although it's still awkward. We can't tell if you mean the object to be America, or the three men-- in fact, it is the three men so the predicate should be plural. If you drop "America" from the sentence, you can tell much more easily.

In this version;
Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt; all three served as America's President.

"America's president" becomes the entire predicate.
Or,
Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt; all three were American presidents.

(Put 'em in chronological order, Washington first.)

Or;

Lincoln, Washington, and Roosevelt were, all three, American presidents.

These three men all served as President of the United States; Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt.

 

[favoritesgoddess]

I don't think either of them is correct. The semicolon is wrong.

The best I can do to make it grammatically correct is "Lincoln, Washington and Roosevelt were all American Presidents."

But if you wanted to list the names for greater effect, you could go "Lincoln. Washington. Roosevelt. Each was America's President."

I think that's right. Does that fit what you're trying to do?

 

[jomar]

In the OP I think President is correct because it is the position that is referred to...America's possessive.

 

[Handley_Page]

Little help, please. Which of these two sentences is better?

Lincoln, Washington, Roosevelt; all three were America's President?

Lincoln, Washington, Roosevelt; all three were America's Presidents?

The Blue one
However, for "were" read:

"all three had been America's President"

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mythtrav16
Little help, please. Which of these two sentences is better?

Lincoln, Washington, Roosevelt; all three were America's President?

Lincoln, Washington, Roosevelt; all three were America's Presidents?

The Blue one
However, for "were" read:

"all three had been America's President"

They are both wrong because of the semicolon. Besides that, there were two presidents named Roosevelt, so you should mention that.

If you change it to a colon, the first is grammatical, but not good because of the inaccuracy.

If you say: Lincoln, Washington, Franklin Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt were all American presidents.

That would be better.

ETA: As for the past perfect tense, that might be okay, depending on context.

 

[Lady_Artemis]

Lincoln, Washington, Roosevelt: all were American presidents.

OR

Lincoln, Washington, Roosevelt: all were America's president.

In either case, I agree that specifying the Roosevelt is necessary...unless the point is simply naming presidents, in which case simply choose a different president. The noun "president" should not be capitalized unless it is used as a title, as in "Mr. President."

If you do wish to specify a certain Roosevelt, such as FDR, then you should use parallel nouns. The sentence would then become: Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Franklin Roosevelt: all were American presidents. If you're including the first name of one, you should include the first name of all.

Actually, the preferred way to write the sentence would be "Lincoln, Washington, and Roosevelt were all American presidents." It's much more readable both in words and in speech.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Lincoln, Washington, Roosevelt: all were American presidents.

OR

Lincoln, Washington, Roosevelt: all were America's president.

In either case, I agree that specifying the Roosevelt is necessary...unless the point is simply naming presidents, in which case simply choose a different president. The noun "president" should not be capitalized unless it is used as a title, as in "Mr. President."

If you do wish to specify a certain Roosevelt, such as FDR, then you should use parallel nouns. The sentence would then become: Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Franklin Roosevelt: all were American presidents. If you're including the first name of one, you should include the first name of all.

Actually, the preferred way to write the sentence would be "Lincoln, Washington, and Roosevelt were all American presidents." It's much more readable both in words and in speech.

Except you would not put a comma after "Washington." The conjunction replaces it. Or you could say: "Lincoln, Washington and two men named Roosevelt were American presidents. It's not necessary to mention that there were two presidents with the same last name, but it makes the sentence more informative, thererore better.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I have a feeling that the REAL sentence isn't about presidents at all.

It's probably something like;

"Alice, Lucy, Veronica; All were Pleasantville's Madam. "

 

[mythtrav16]

Yes, I should have specified a Roosevelt. My bad .

I think I've also confused my own dillema by giving a poor example in what was an on-the-fly question. One problem with my example is that, because America has an adjective form (American), it allows the phrase to be reworded. Another is that I've tried to cram what are two segments of dialogue in my story, in to one sentence here in the forums. I didn't want to use the actual text, as it contains a spoiler in my upcoming Halloween Contest entry.

This is probably a better example of my dilema:

"What do you know about Steve Jobs, Dilbert Chores and Poindexter Tasks?" asked Person One.

"I know that all three were Apple's CEO," said Person Two.

Note that in this example, I can't reword it to say "all three were Appelian CEOs", as "Apple" (the corporation) doesn't have a recognized adjective form.

My problem is that the word "were" tends to indicate that the sentence should be worded in plurals, which supports a case for using "CEOs" instead of the singular. But on the other hand, I don't want to create confusion by implying that Apple can have more than one CEO at any one time (I know nothing about their business format and maybe they can have more than one CEO, but please, for the sake of simplicity let's just assume that they can only have one CEO at a time, for this example).

The actual role being referenced in my story is more obscure than president of the United States, or CEO of a famous corporation and, while I think people would tend to assume it was a singular position, I am worried that if I have a sentence that says (for example) "All three were the school's librarians," it might imply the school had three librarians at once, rather than three single librarians in succession.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Yes, I should have specified a Roosevelt. My bad .

I think I've also confused my own dillema by giving a poor example in what was an on-the-fly question. One problem with my example is that, because America has an adjective form (American), it allows the phrase to be reworded. Another is that I've tried to cram what are two segments of dialogue in my story, in to one sentence here in the forums. I didn't want to use the actual text, as it contains a spoiler in my upcoming Halloween Contest entry.

This is probably a better example of my dilema:

"What do you know about Steve Jobs, Dilbert Chores and Poindexter Tasks?" asked Person One.

"I know that all three were Apple's CEO," said Person Two.

Note that in this example, I can't reword it to say "all three were Appelian CEOs", as "Apple" (the corporation) doesn't have a recognized adjective form.

My problem is that the word "were" tends to indicate that the sentence should be worded in plurals, which supports a case for using "CEOs" instead of the singular. But on the other hand, I don't want to create confusion by implying that Apple can have more than one CEO at any one time (I know nothing about their business format and maybe they can have more than one CEO, but please, for the sake of simplicity let's just assume that they can only have one CEO at a time, for this example).

The actual role being referenced in my story is more obscure than president of the United States, or CEO of a famous corporation and, while I think people would tend to assume it was a singular position, I am worried that if I have a sentence that says (for example) "All three were the school's librarians," it might imply the school had three librarians at once, rather than three single librarians in succession.

If you said: "I know each of them was the CEO of Apple," said Person two." that would be a better and clearer sentence. The word "that" in Sentence 2 is redundant in narration, but okay if it is in dialogue unless the speaker is a Grammar Nazi like some of us.

 

[mokkelke]

Can't you solve it by adding something in the lines like this:


"What do you know about Steve Jobs, Dilbert Chores and Poindexter Tasks?" asked Person One.

"I know that either of them have been the CEO at Apple's at one point," said Person Two.

To me that says only one of them could have been the CEO at Apple's.

Just my two cents.

 

[mythtrav16]

If you said: "I know each of them was the CEO of Apple," said Person two." that would be a better and clearer sentence. The word "that" in Sentence 2 is redundant in narration, but okay if it is in dialogue unless the speaker is a Grammar Nazi like some of us.

That sounds like I good rewording. I'll give it a try. Thanks!

 

[Lady_Artemis]

Except you would not put a comma after "Washington." The conjunction replaces it.

Actually, that's a matter of preference...and which Nazi grammarian you're writing for. Same for the whole ending-a-sentence-with-a-preposition thing.

 

[Lady_Artemis]

This is probably a better example of my dilema:

"What do you know about Steve Jobs, Dilbert Chores and Poindexter Tasks?" asked Person One.

"I know that all three were Apple's CEO," said Person Two.

My problem is that the word "were" tends to indicate that the sentence should be worded in plurals, which supports a case for using "CEOs" instead of the singular. But on the other hand, I don't want to create confusion by implying that Apple can have more than one CEO at any one time (I know nothing about their business format and maybe they can have more than one CEO, but please, for the sake of simplicity let's just assume that they can only have one CEO at a time, for this example).

The word "were" only indicates that your subject ("all three") is plural. It does not apply to the rest of your predicate and implies nothing about its tense. However, I can see your dilemma about the number of CEOs at one time. One way writers avoid this is by using "have been" as opposed to "were." "I know that all three have been Apple's CEO." There's no indication that they WEREN'T CEO at the same time, but there's no implication that they were and the vast majority wouldn't question it. Plus the verb implies that the list may include the current CEO, although it does not assume that it does.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Can't you solve it by adding something in the lines like this:


"What do you know about Steve Jobs, Dilbert Chores and Poindexter Tasks?" asked Person One.

"I know that either of them have been the CEO at Apple's at one point," said Person Two.

To me that says only one of them could have been the CEO at Apple's.

Just my two cents.

You would only use "either" when referring to two people, etc. You would say "each" and that is a singular, so say "...each...has been..." or ",,,all...have been..."

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Little help, please. Which of these two sentences is better?

Lincoln, Washington, Roosevelt; all three were America's President?

Lincoln, Washington, Roosevelt; all three were America's Presidents?

Well, neither really. Both sentences have no verb or object in the main clause, so you can't use the semicolon, 'three' is redundant after 'all' and convention has it that we refer to 'The President of America'.

So, to rewrite simply, all you have to say is, "Lincoln, Washington and Roosevelt were all Presidents of America".

Does it matter which Roosevelt you are referring to?

 

[sr71plt]

I don't think either of them is correct. The semicolon is wrong.

Bingo. The proper punctuation to use here would be a colon, which could be done, although it would still look a little awkward.

Beyond that, think you need to drop back and punt. There is no American president (Canada is as American as the United States is--and so is Mexico, for that matter).

If the basic question is whether "president" is singular or plural, if you use "all," it should be plural; if you use "each," it should be singular.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Bingo. The proper punctuation to use here would be a colon, which could be done, although it would still look a little awkward.

Beyond that, think you need to drop back and punt. There is no American president (Canada is as American as the United States is--and so is Mexico, for that matter).

If the basic question is whether "president" is singular or plural, if you use "all," it should be plural; if you use "each," it should be singular.

There are two Americas - North and South. Central America is a part of North America.

However, in common usage, unless there is some other qualifier, "America" refers to The United States of America, and a reference to the American president is taken to be a reference to the president of the USA.

 

[sr71plt]

By those who don't know any better, Box. It's one of the first lessons we learned in the U.S. foreign service--what is U.S. and what is American. When we misused "American," our foreign counterparts were quick to point out our jingoism.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

With respect, I think box is right.

The plural form the Americas is often used in English [for the New World], as the singular America is ambiguous: America is more commonly used to refer to the United States of America

Surely jingoism means threats as a result of aggressive foreign policy. Used to be 'spreadeaglism' but that's died out. Nothing to do with the name 'America'. Heck, the State Department's official website is america.gov.

Away from the official name, France rails against the American film industry, Britain claims to have a special relationship with America, the German press are reporting that 'America is falling out of love with Obama' and the Chinese are worried about the 'American influence'..

In common parlance, if you use the word America in most parts of the world people understand 'US'. The oft-repeated charge of jingoism relates, rightly or wrongly, to our politics - not the name.

In my travels I have never found anyone who objected to the use of 'America' for the US; in fact, no-one thinks of anything else.

 

[Lady_Artemis]

Heck, the State Department's official website is america.gov.

Actually, the State Departments offical website is www.state.gov. Not nitpicking...but although we're all referred to as "Americans" since we live in the US, I rarely hear anyone in government refer to our country as "America" unless they're singing a song. They refer to American value, American interests, the American economy, etc...but when they refer to the country, it's always "The United States of America" or just "The United States."

That said, the phrase "American presidents" definitely directs anyone reading to presidents of the United States. We are referred to as "Americans;" therefore, an "American" president would be a resident of the US. You could argue that, sure, there's more than one America. The counter is that other countries don't use "American" as an adjective to describe their people to other nations. The argument could go on forever.

So interesting to see where this conversation has gone...

 

[Loring2]

Come now

The word "were" only indicates that your subject ("all three") is plural. It does not apply to the rest of your predicate and implies nothing about its tense. However, I can see your dilemma about the number of CEOs at one time. One way writers avoid this is by using "have been" as opposed to "were." "I know that all three have been Apple's CEO." There's no indication that they WEREN'T CEO at the same time, but there's no implication that they were and the vast majority wouldn't question it. Plus the verb implies that the list may include the current CEO, although it does not assume that it does.

The Title CEO meaning Chief Executive Officer must of necessity be singular and the word Officer is the only noun in the title.

All this nonsense about plurality is just that; you would have to say Chief Executive Officers if there could be more than one but the entire title 'Chief Executive Officer' should be treated as one word and the adjective Chief further implies the singular and not to say that American businesses have more than one big boss.

Now let's confuse it some more; if a company were to have co COCEOs, would we have two CEOs or a new title and chaos? Please check with me later in the day or tomorrow, after I've recovered.

Loring

 

[Loring2]

Come now

The word "were" only indicates that your subject ("all three") is plural. It does not apply to the rest of your predicate and implies nothing about its tense. However, I can see your dilemma about the number of CEOs at one time. One way writers avoid this is by using "have been" as opposed to "were." "I know that all three have been Apple's CEO." There's no indication that they WEREN'T CEO at the same time, but there's no implication that they were and the vast majority wouldn't question it. Plus the verb implies that the list may include the current CEO, although it does not assume that it does.

The Title CEO meaning Chief Executive Officer must of necessity be singular since the word Officer is the only noun in the title.

All this nonsense about plurality is just that; you would have to say Chief Executive Officers if there could be more than one but the entire title 'Chief Executive Officer' should be treated as one word and the adjective Chief further implies the singular and not to say that American businesses have more than one big boss.

Now let's confuse it some more; if a company were to have co COCEOs, would we have two CEOs or a new title and chaos? Please check with me later in the day or tomorrow, after I've recovered.

Loring