11

Is this sentence correct? "A lot of sugar have been added to the milk." Please explain it.

ajesh kdy
  • 411
  • 5
  • 11
  • 15
  • 3
    Was it... White sugar, brown sugar, cane sugar, and fruit sugar? Even so, would need an s – Menasheh Feb 15 '17 at 03:22
  • 4
    @Menasheh Totally irrelevant. The word sugar" is being used as a non-count noun in this example. It's referring to the product as a whole, not individual kinds of sugar. – BillJ Feb 15 '17 at 07:54
  • @BillJ that's an opinion. We don't have much context. – Menasheh Feb 15 '17 at 08:25
  • 3
    @Menasheh It's not opinion, it's fact. As written, "sugar" is clearly being used in a non-count way. We cannot second-guess the author of the sentence and assume that they might have made a mistake and meant to write plural "sugars". It is written as singular "sugar" and we have to assume that's what they meant. Simple really! – BillJ Feb 15 '17 at 08:44
  • Is this just a homework assignment?… – Pierre Arlaud Feb 15 '17 at 10:58
  • 2
    @BillJ: You can assume the author has made a mistake, because the sentence given is ungrammatical. The point Menasheh is getting at is that "A lot of sugars (of various types) have been added to the milk" would be grammatical. However, that'd be a strange situation, so you're right that "a lot of sugar has been..." is likely what they intended. – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft Feb 16 '17 at 07:02

4 Answers4

44

A lot of sugar have/has been added to the milk.

No, the verb should be the singular "has".

The quantificational noun "lot" is number-transparent, which means that the whole noun phrase takes on the number of the noun that is complement of the preposition "of", which in this case is the non-count "sugar".

Since non-count nouns like "sugar" take singular verb agreement it follows that the verb must be the singular "has".

BillJ
  • 16,811
  • 1
  • 16
  • 28
  • 8
    Non-count nouns are also known as uncountable or mass nouns. – Greg Bacon Feb 14 '17 at 19:59
  • 13
    Say the recipe called for confectioners sugar, brown sugar, granulated sugar, invert sugar and 10 other types of sugar. The sentence could be correct as "A lot of sugars have been added to the milk". I consider your answer correct, but wanted to point out that there is a case where "have" would be correct and "sugar" would need to be changed to "sugars". – Keeta - reinstate Monica Feb 14 '17 at 20:06
  • I added sucrose, dextrose and maltose to my milk. Lots of sugars have been added to my milk. – John Wayland Bales Feb 14 '17 at 23:27
  • 1
    Here in the UK, we sometimes use the plural in a count noun sense to refer to spoonfuls, e.g. "How many sugars would you like in your tea?" – Bobby Jack Feb 15 '17 at 01:47
  • 1
    @BobbyJack - note that in that usage it's sugars, though. I'd also judge it an informal usage, perhaps because to my Canadian understanding, a double-double is two milk and two sugar (rather than two milks and two sugars), with "servings of" implied. – Mathieu K. Feb 15 '17 at 02:10
  • 1
    In this part of the US people definitely say "two sugars", but in the original context nobody would ever say "a lot of sugars" unless it was a very specific context - someone at a fast food restaurant, say, grabbing a handful of 20 sugar packets. – Darren Ringer Feb 15 '17 at 02:10
  • 1
    How many sugars...? is merely a shortened version of How many spoons of sugar...?, so it's not strictly related to the OP's question, although it's a valid observation for English-language learners to be aware of (both in this case, and as a general warning). – flith Feb 15 '17 at 10:32
22

No, sugar is an uncountable noun, and A lot does not quantify it, so it takes has: A lot of sugar has been added to the milk.

However, if you quantify it, you may say: Two cups of sugar have been added to the milk.

Davo
  • 4,130
  • 2
  • 20
  • 36
  • 2
    Lots are countable. In this case, a single lot was specified. –  Feb 14 '17 at 20:41
  • 10
    @Physics-Compute In this context, "a lot" is the idiom meaning "a large but nonspecific quantity", not the auctioneering jargon meaning "a discrete item or set of items that will be auctioned as a unit". – zwol Feb 14 '17 at 20:58
  • @Physics-Compute so I can say "please add two lots of sugar to my coffee"? – Andrew Feb 14 '17 at 20:58
  • 1
    It's not an idiom. Its use is as a metaphor. A lot that is full of something usually indicates there are many somethings involved in order to fill the lot. Another expression that is less metaphorical, but is a single big container that holds many smaller items is "a basket (full) of oranges." Above, we have a lot (full) of sugar, which obviously can't normally fit into a suggested glass of milk, so we are meant to envision a (single) lot full of sugar being put into the glass as a metaphor for how much sugar is actually in there. A single lot is countable and singular. –  Feb 14 '17 at 22:00
  • @Andrew You can say it, yes, but one lot is usually enough to get the point across that you want to be diabetic. –  Feb 14 '17 at 22:05
  • Though, you can say "Please add lots of sugar..." to mean that you want a large amount of sugar. That use is idiomatic, and is usually only used in speaking, not writing. – fectin Feb 14 '17 at 22:13
  • 1
    Isn't the point more so that the subject of the sentence is A lot, and the verb should match the subject. That sugar is uncountable is irrelevant. – Kenneth K. Feb 15 '17 at 03:20
  • 2
    @Pysics-Compute The "lot" in the example is not countable - it's a quantificational non-count noun. It is head of the NP, but it's the noun that is complement of the preposition "of" that determines the number of the whole NP, in this case "sugar" which is being used in a non-count way. You are confusing this "lot" with the "lot" found in examples like "We have two lots of people coming today", where "lot" is a count noun. – BillJ Feb 15 '17 at 08:19
  • 6
    @Kenneth K No! It's totally relevant, indeed key to understanding the grammar. The "lot" under consideration is number-transparent, meaning that for verb agreement purposes the whole NP takes on the number of the noun that is complement to the prep "of", which in this case is the non-count "sugar". If the complement noun were plural like, say, "flavourings", then the whole NP would become plural: "A lot of flavourings were added to the milk". Do you see the difference? – BillJ Feb 15 '17 at 09:01
  • @BillJ What happens here, then: Several packets of sugar were placed before me. A lot ____ added to my coffee. Is it now "was" or "were"? These sentences are nonsensical (I doubt you'd hear someone speak this way), but based on your logic I have to look at the 1st sentence to determine the 2nd sentence's verb form. That doesn't seem proper. I've only understood pronouns to be dependent on context found in previous sentences, not verbs. – Kenneth K. Feb 15 '17 at 16:28
  • 1
    That is, unless you're telling me that "a lot" functions as a pronoun in the 2nd sentence. If that be the case, then I concede, but I've never understood "a lot" to be a pronoun. – Kenneth K. Feb 15 '17 at 16:31
  • 1
    Hmmmm... Well it seems according to Oxford that "a lot" is treated like a pronoun. So I guess that means I concede :) – Kenneth K. Feb 15 '17 at 16:35
  • 2
    @Kenneth K I've explained as clearly as I can that the "lot" under discussion here is a non-count quantificational noun. Please read my answer for a very simple explanation of how it works. – BillJ Feb 15 '17 at 16:50
  • 1
    More evidence for the uncountability of "a lot": If we replaced it with "lots", the sentence would still only be grammatical with "has". "Lots of sugar have been added..." still doesn't work. – GalacticCowboy Feb 16 '17 at 05:44
  • 2
    The plural form "lots" works in the same way as singular "lot": Lots of sugar has been added" ~ "Lots of things have been added. – BillJ Feb 16 '17 at 10:36
  • @BillJ I Disagree. A lot is used here as a measuring device. It is correct to say, "One liter of sure has been added," and "Two liters of sugar have been added." Apply that to a lot. –  Feb 17 '17 at 23:19
  • 2
    @Physics-Compute The crucial difference is that the non-count quantificational noun "lot" is number-transparent. The count noun "liter is not number-transparent; unlike "lot", it determines the number of the NP in the usual way. Please try to understand this. – BillJ Feb 18 '17 at 09:57
  • @BillJ Please try to understand what a lot is literally. –  Feb 18 '17 at 13:58
  • 2
    @Physics-Compute I understand perfectly, thank you. I have explained this very carefully to you. I'm sorry if you cannot grasp this simple point of grammar. And I also carefully explained the difference between the nouns "liter" and "lot". – BillJ Feb 18 '17 at 14:03
  • It seems to me that the difference here is that I am interpreting the word lot literally, and you are interpreting it as the popular, nonliteral meaning, disconnected from a physical lot. Though noncount is the popular thought, the literal (countable) meaning of lot is necessary to understand the metaphor. –  Feb 23 '17 at 22:02
  • There are more than one use for the word; this does not mean that uses other than your suggested one are not also literal - in fact, they are. – Davo Feb 24 '17 at 02:08
3

Although I think that BillJ's answer is probably a correct way to look at this issue, it seems a little technical. It's possible to look at this sentence another way and understand it with fairly basic, high-school level grammar.

The subject of this sentence is "a lot", which is singular. Therefore, the verb should be "has".

A lot has been added to my milk.

"Of sugar" is an adjectival prepositional phrase, modifying "a lot". It's telling you what kind of lot has been added.

Using 'lot' in this sense is somewhat idiomatic, in that a 'lot' is

an article or set of articles for sale at an auction. (MW)

Although it's become so common to use it in this fashion that the idiomatic usage is probably more common than the original one. It has this definition:

a considerable quantity or extent (MW)

So,

A considerable quantity has been added to my milk.

What kind of considerable quantity?

A considerable quantity of sugar.

Regardless of how you look at it, you should use "has". It's an informal usage anyway, so the exact technical details aren't that important.

Community
  • 1
DCShannon
  • 3,296
  • 14
  • 31
  • 3
    This sounds reasonable to me until I consider examples like "a lot of people" or "a lot of cups", at which point it seems wrong. "Lot" taken as a noun should still be singular, but the whole phrase acts as plural, so something else is going on here, right? – Dan Getz Feb 15 '17 at 03:09
  • @DanGetz From my memory of grammar in primary school, that is a common error in English. It doesn't matter if the phrase sounds like it is plural, what matters are the rules of grammar. The rules of grammar identify subject/verb agreement, not subject-phrase/verb agreement. A lot is one singular thing (hence the "a"). A lot of people is still just one lot. – Kenneth K. Feb 15 '17 at 03:23
  • 3
    @KennethK. do you (or does someone else) have a source for "a lot of" working this way in English, when one is not speaking of actual lots? Because that just doesn't match my experience. – Dan Getz Feb 15 '17 at 03:45
  • 1
    For example, "a number" is also singular, but "a number of people"… – Dan Getz Feb 15 '17 at 03:49
  • @Dan Getz The point is that "sugar" in the OP's example is being used as a non-count noun. The same would apply to "A lot of people are ...". Of course, if it was a count noun like "cups", it would be a plural NP: "A lot of cups are ..." – BillJ Feb 15 '17 at 07:59
  • 3
    @Shule The "lot" that we're considering is a number-transparent non-count noun and nothing at all like "box". Singular "lot" takes "a" as determiner, and is used a great many speakers. It's not used as an adjective; it's head of the NP and since it's number transparent, the whole NP takes on the number of the noun that is complement to the preposition "of". Grammatically, "box" is quite different since it is not number-transparent and hence determines the number of the NP: "A box of material/toys has just arrived". (singular verb in both cases) – BillJ Feb 15 '17 at 08:37
  • @BillJ I agree with you; what I'm questioning is this answer and Kenneth's comments which seem to me to be saying otherwise. – Dan Getz Feb 15 '17 at 14:39
  • @DanGetz I think there are multiple ways to look at this that are equally valid. The main point is that they should use "has". I upvoted BillJ's answer as well, just wanted to add another interpretation. – DCShannon Feb 15 '17 at 17:23
  • @DCShannon so in your interpretation, what happens in "a lot of people"? Is "a lot" still singular? Is the verb still "has"? If not, then this answer seems to me more likely to confuse than to help. – Dan Getz Feb 15 '17 at 17:28
  • 2
    I don't think the "auction" definition of "lot" is the original one. The M-W link you give suggests the origin is OE "hlot", which basically means "portion". – psmears Feb 15 '17 at 17:33
  • @psmears Perhaps "original" is the wrong word. It was my understanding that that usage preceded the current "lots" usage, so maybe "previous" or "older". – DCShannon Feb 15 '17 at 17:40
  • @DCShannon: I think the (much) older meaning of "portion" is the origin of both the auction meaning and the "lots of" one - i.e. they're indirectly related, but the auction meaning isn't a direct ancestor of the "lots of" one. – psmears Feb 15 '17 at 22:02
  • @DCShannon Maybe the concept of "measure words" is useful here? One quart of milk, fifty head of cattle, a lot of sugar: feels like the same construction to me. – zwol Feb 15 '17 at 22:20
  • 1
    Rather than "a lot of people" you might say "many people", without changing the meaning (subject is plural, use 'have'). You are unlikely to say "many sugar" in this context, you would say "much sugar": use 'has'. Now, if several types of sugar are used then you might use "many sugars", but it doesn't seem likely in this case. – Keith Davies Feb 15 '17 at 23:10
  • 1
    Just replace "a lot of" with "a box of" or "a group of". – Jack M Feb 15 '17 at 23:12
1

You could use "have" with the countable word "sugars" or similarly "sugar crystals". In the context of tea or coffee, you may ask for 3 sugars, where it is implied you are talking about specific units of quantity like cubes or packets.

avatarofhope2
  • 11
  • 2