23

This is from an article published on CNBC:

"The only thing we haven't seen are locusts, said CEO Jim McCann in an interview." CNBC-A rose is still a rose

The subject of the sentence is "The only thing", which is clearly singular. So, the auxiliary verb must be singular, too. At least this is what we have been taught at school :)

However, you see in this sentence that the auxiliary is actually an "ARE". "The only thing.....are......".

If it is because it is followed by "locusts", the word "locusts" is not the subject of the sentence. So, I, as a non-native English speaker, would expect the auxiliary verb should agree with the subject. However, apparently, it is not.

So, why is "The only thing ..........." being followed by an "ARE"?

Yunus
  • 7,297
  • 4
  • 43
  • 89
  • The verb must always follow the subject, which is 'the only thing' (singular). – Michael Harvey Mar 17 '24 at 15:27
  • It's likely just an error. People do make mistakes. Not everybody is perfect. Also are you relying on subtitles, or a transcription, or could you have misheard it? The verb agreement must be with the subject. The only thing (singular) ... is. The only things (plural) ... are. – Billy Kerr Mar 17 '24 at 15:30
  • 3
    I’m voting to close this question because it's based on a simple mistake, or a possibly a transcript error. – Billy Kerr Mar 17 '24 at 15:38
  • 1
    Just as we cannot hold people to literary standards in their everyday speech, we cannot use their spoken words as models of the written word. "Yeah" is a normal thing to say in conversation, whether judged as a whole sentence or not. – Yosef Baskin Mar 17 '24 at 15:58
  • 7
    Locusts are the only thing we haven't seen. This is called an inverse copular construction, which exists in English. See Wikipedia. – Lambie Mar 17 '24 at 16:09
  • 16
    @BillyKerr There is no mistake here. And there is disagreement among linguists about how to classify copular and inverse copular constructions. – Lambie Mar 17 '24 at 16:11
  • 1
    It's not inverse. It's called the 'reversible specifying construction' because it has the potential for the subject and PC to be reversed. – BillJ Mar 17 '24 at 16:15
  • @BillJ Of course, but it can only be shown comparatively, not on its own. Ergo, if you cite both, they are reversed. Anyway, which came first, the chicken or the egg? The plumber is Fred. Fred is the plumber. QED. – Lambie Mar 17 '24 at 16:32
  • 2
    The problem is the mismatch between singular subject "thing" and plural PC "locusts". Whichever verb is used results in a lack of number agreement between subject and predicator. Consider "The only thing we need now is new curtains, which is acceptable despite the mismatch. – BillJ Mar 17 '24 at 16:34
  • @Lambie No: the term 'inverse' is wrong for the reason I gave, i.e. such specifying clauses with "be" have the potential to be reversed. That is why the term 'revsersible', not 'inverse' is correct – BillJ Mar 17 '24 at 16:38
  • @BillJ That is not how you show it. "a type of inversion in English where canonical SCP word order (subject-copula-predicative expression, e.g. Fred is the plumber) is reversed in a sense, so that one appears to have the order PCS instead (predicative expression-copula-subject, e.g. The plumber is Fred)." You show it by doing it. – Lambie Mar 17 '24 at 16:41
  • @LAmbie. Yes, that is how it's described. Neither order is more correct than the other, hence the term 'reversible' since either order has the potential to be reversed, thus reversing the functions. – BillJ Mar 17 '24 at 16:45
  • @BillJ I repeat: you can only show it by doing it. Sure, reversible and once reversed, it is the inverse of the other. A learner will not get it otherwise and I daresay many others. In the absolute, which came first depends on which, in fact, was said or written first. – Lambie Mar 17 '24 at 16:54
  • That is the way it is described. Compare "Max was the guy who was arrested". Here "Max" is subject and "the guy ..." is PC. But in "The guy who was arrested was Max", the subject is "the guy ..." and "Max" is PC. Neither is more 'correct' than the other, neither is the inverse of the other, hence the term 'reversible'. since in a specifying construction like this with "be" either has the potential to be reversed. Look up the meaning of the word "potential". – BillJ Mar 17 '24 at 17:03
  • And in the OP's example "The only thing we haven't seen" is subject and "locusts" is PC. It has the potential to be reversed to "Locusts are the only thing we haven't seen", where "locusts" functions as subject and "the only thing" as PC. Again both are correct. Either version has the potential to be reversed. This is why the term 'reversible specifying construction" is preferable to "inverse copular construction' – BillJ Mar 17 '24 at 17:12
  • Further, the ascriptive copular construction (as opposed to the specifying type) cannot be reversed without a change of functions, which is why we need the component "specifying" in the title of the construction. – BillJ Mar 17 '24 at 17:37
  • 4
    Yunus, please weigh in. I don't think this should be closed. – Lambie Mar 17 '24 at 20:17
  • 1
    @BillyKerr, no I am not relying on my mishearing, nor subtitles. This is from a text published on https://www.cnbc.com/2015/02/13/for-1-800-flowers-a-rose-is-still-a-rose-all-year-round.html – Yunus Mar 17 '24 at 20:53
  • 2
    @BillyKerr Even if it's true that this is simply a mistake, the OP and others who might read this question later don't know that. That's the whole point of the question: He's asking whether this is correct or a mistake. – Jay Mar 18 '24 at 03:59
  • 6
    @Jay, yes exactly that. Even it is a mistake of the speaker, a non-native speaker can't recognise that. Becase sometimes what you see as a mistake turns out to be not a mistake but a colloquial usage, dialect, non-standard use, etc., similarly some other times what you see is grammatically correct turns out to be NOT idiomatic. So, learners have no other chance other than asking when they see something different from what they were taught at school. – Yunus Mar 18 '24 at 07:40
  • Sorry to say that you have chosen an incorrect answer. I don't say that because I have an answer of my own - I made my answer because the accepted one is so misleadingly incorrect. And this is a binary choice, so it isn't just a little bit wrong - it is completely and utterly incorrect. – Astralbee Mar 18 '24 at 09:10
  • Is this Q&A related? – evilmandarine Mar 18 '24 at 09:48
  • 1
    Does this answer your question? IS or ARE? "The only thing that I want you to hit right now IS/ARE the books" – Janus Bahs Jacquet Mar 18 '24 at 11:02
  • @Astralbee, My choice is not final yet, and it may change as I continue to get scientifc and persuading examples. There are different views on that by other native English speakers, so it is not possible for me to say the "...ARE..." usage is totally and bluntly wrong, when it has a scientifc explanation on Wikipedia and there are also other examples by other native speakers. So currently it seems that both "..IS.." and "...ARE..." used, with "...IS.." being more common. However, I am still researching, because new resources are emerging as I read. – Yunus Mar 18 '24 at 12:04
  • @Yunus - just because it has been published, doesn't mean it is correct. Transcripts or quotes from interviews are generally written verbatim, warts and all. The things people say are not always grammatical. People can and do slip up. – Billy Kerr Mar 19 '24 at 20:13
  • 1
    I think this is one of those cases in which the insertion of some words between subject and verb obscures the relationships between the parts of the sentence and causes native speakers to become erratic. There would be no such confusion about the sentence, "*The only thing are locusts." – David K Mar 20 '24 at 00:56
  • @Yunus I've added some examples from published books, - published by academic university presses and other reputable academic publishers - for you to explore. – Araucaria - Not here any more. Mar 21 '24 at 15:37

6 Answers6

26

Here is what real English speakers actually do. The examples (1)-(30) below show that in such cases native speakers, including some expert users of the language, often use plural are to agree with the following noun phrase.

The examples shown are from a range of sources from the first page of a google search, including world-famous film critics like Roger Ebert, the official promotional material for films, promotional blurb from publishers for books on Amazon and so forth.

What all of this shows is that with any kind of cleft-like sentence involving the word thing, you are quite likely to see the verb BE showing proximity agreement with the noun phrase that follows it, instead of agreeing with the word thing.

It also shows that you should never ever listen to people when they try and change the rules of the language according to what they think the language should do!!!

Enjoy!:

Edit

Due to popular demand, I have now edited in a smaller sample of attested examples beginning The only thing we saw were. These are taken from the texts of published books and academic journals. This miniature corpus now occurs before the larger list below. Enjoy!

The only thing we saw were ...

  1. The only thing we saw were rocks.
    Jorge Daniel Taillant (2021) Meltdown: The Earth Without Glaciers The Open University Press

  2. The only thing we saw were thousands of sheep, raising dust.
    Mark Harris, ‎Deborah Oppenheimer (2000) Into the Arms of Strangers: Stories of the Kindertransport Bloomsbury.

  3. The only thing we saw were granular deposits of IgG and complement.
    José Strauss (2012) Pediatric Nephrology: Volume 6 Current Concepts in Diagnosis and Management Springer.

  4. The only thing we saw were pictures they had taken of the scene and they were just from the head up.
    James R. Acker, Robert M. Bohm and Charles S. Lanier [Editors] (2014) America's Experiment With Capital Punishment: Reflections on the Past, Present, and Future of the Ultimate Penal Sanction Carolina Academic Press

  5. The only thing we saw were numerous pinhead-size reddish purple spots, looking like raised tuffs of blood vessels in the periumbilical, pelvic, genital, and thigh areas.
    Walter B. Shelley, E. Dorinda Shelley (2006) Consultations in Dermatology: Studies of Orphan and Unique Patients Cambridge University Press

  6. The only thing we saw were the final projects they shared at the end, which were also the only graded portions of the hidden writing assignment.
    Salibrici, Mary M and Richard C Salter (2004) "The Transitional Space of Hidden Writing: A Resource for Teaching Critical Insight and Concern." Pedagogy, 4(2) p. 215-240. Project MUSE muse.jhu.edu/article/55548.

  7. The only thing we saw were wildly waving natives.
    William Diebold (2012) Hell is So Green: Search and Rescue Over the Hump in World War II Lyons Press

  8. The only thing we saw were the helicopters.
    Victoria Sandord (2000) Buried Secrets: Truth and Human Rights in Guatemala Palgrave Macmillan

  9. The only thing we saw were sea and sky and a number of sailboats, which made a beautiful sight on the water.
    Norwegian-American Historical Association Norwegain-American Studies Vol 24 p.35.

  10. The only thing we saw were sharks' fins sticking out of the water
    Peter K. Lutken Jr. [author] & E. R. Lutken [editor] A Thousand Places Left Behind: One Soldier’s Account of Jungle Warfare in WWII Burma University Press of Mississippi,

The only thing standing in his way ...

  1. The only thing standing in his way are the heroes of The Justice Society.See here
  2. The only thing standing in his way are feelings for a girl he knows will hold him back from his dreams. See here
  3. For Rams CB, E.J. Gaines, the only thing standing in his way are injuries. See here
  4. The only thing standing in his way are Earth's mightiest heroes collectively known as the Avengers ... See here
  5. The only thing standing in his way are those pesky workplace safety guidelines. See here
  6. The only thing standing in his way are two U.S. fighter jets. See here
  7. The only thing standing in his way are feral ponies, radical seniors, common sense, and Duncan's inability to do anything without a list. See here
  8. The only thing standing in his way are Rylan, a jaded, half-breed thief from the forest where Faedryn’s body lays hidden, and Lorelei, a quirky, bright-eyed inquisitor who takes her orders from one of the empire’s five ruling quintarchs. See here
  9. The only thing standing in his way are all the bugs, glitches and technical difficulties that come with any teleconference. See here
  10. The only thing standing in his way are two immigrants with massive mustaches who hope to throw a wrench in his plans. See here
  11. The only thing standing in his way are a travelling folk balladeer and centuries of history. See here
  12. A young man (Alexander) is ready to get his drivers license, and the only thing standing in his way are the outrageous, quirky and sometimes criminal driving test administrators he's paired with. See here
  13. The only thing standing in his way are his 6 older siblings. See here
  14. The only thing standing in his way are a group of young students who have taken up the mantel of X-Men. See here
  15. The only thing standing in his way are the Avengers, led by Thor. See here
  16. The only thing standing in his way are feral ponies, radical seniors, common sense, and Duncan's inability to do anything without a list. See here
  17. Lil' Dice, on the other hand, wants nothing more than to be the favela's undisputed crime boss, and the only thing standing in his way are the older hoods. See here
  18. O'Toole will do anything to get his hands on this fabled coin, and the only thing standing in his way are a couple of kids in actual possession of the artifact [sic]: one of them's an American tourist, the other a Palestinian kid. See here
  19. The only thing standing in his way are two American soldiers who believe they have discovered the target of the mission. See here
  20. The only thing standing in his way are a dislocated wing, an order to fire Tulip from the hedonistic current CEO Hunter, and the baby. See here
  21. And the only thing standing in his way are those damn kids. See here
  22. The Devil has arrived to claim his bride-to-be, Courtney and the only thing standing in his way are the bridesmaids, some unlucky passerbys, and Glen and his ragtag bunch of groomsmen. See here
  23. Roshan has awaken to reclaim the AEGIS of Immortals and the only thing standing in his way are the Rotaractors! See here
  24. Really, the only thing standing in his way are outdated stereotypes and stigmas about women's football. See here
  25. He has an army of werewolves and dark plans for Germania and Francia, and the only thing standing in his way are the Centurions at Nordhaven. See here
  26. The only thing standing in his way are his legs. See here
  27. The only thing standing in his way are people like Zeke and Kris, a vampire whose loyalty can't be bought. See here
  28. The only thing standing in his way are the local yokels of Sommerton. See here
  29. The only thing standing in his way are Republicans who must always remember that they have a mandate of their own—to stop him. See here
  30. The only thing standing in his way are a handful of corrupt officials and a culture not familiar with the problems facing their oceans. See here
Mari-Lou A
  • 27,037
  • 13
  • 72
  • 125
Araucaria - Not here any more.
  • 27,144
  • 4
  • 53
  • 117
  • 1
    Oh, I posted an answer similar to yours. – Mari-Lou A Mar 18 '24 at 17:22
  • 4
    +1 for "Here is what real English speakers actually do" I'm absolutely certain we hear this type of discordant singular subject and plural verb all the time but when it sounds natural, and it will in a native speaker's voice, we don't notice the "mistake". – Mari-Lou A Mar 18 '24 at 17:45
  • "expert users of the language often use plural are to agree with the following noun phrase." It's more like everyday native speakers. Mine was the first answer to state that "are locusts" is okay, I gave the reversibility idea and yet I get no credit. And I even explained the grammar. – Lambie Mar 18 '24 at 20:37
  • 3
    This is a good answer, but it could be strengthened by choosing examples with a broader variety of constructions, rather than only using “the only thing standing in X’s way [is/was ~ are/were]”. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Mar 18 '24 at 21:25
  • @JanusBahsJacquet Only so much time in my lunch break, I'm afraid. There's hundreds of thousands around. See here, for example: "The only thing I don't like are" – Araucaria - Not here any more. Mar 18 '24 at 22:57
  • 1
    @Lambie Well, you got 7 upvotes, and one was from me! (Having said that I'm 50/50 about your reversible clause) Seems they needed lots of evidence. I'd call Roger Ebert an expert user. One of the most revered film critics ever! – Araucaria - Not here any more. Mar 18 '24 at 23:56
  • 1
    Well, let's say film blurb writers are just expert enough to qualify as examples... this should indeed settle the question of "is it OK". – Peter - Reinstate Monica Mar 19 '24 at 07:10
  • 5
    All of those sound wrong to this native speaker's ear. I don't dispute that real native speakers sometimes make that mistake, but decent editors typically correct it in written English. And I note that my usual correction would not be to change "are" to "is", but rather to change "thing" to "things". – John Bollinger Mar 19 '24 at 19:30
  • 3
    In spoken English you can get away with all of these because "the only thing standing" and "the only things standing" sound similar enough that a listener will hear whichever of these seems correct to them. As for written English, my main takeaway from this answer is that the Internet has enabled an explosion of unedited prose from inexpert writers. – David K Mar 20 '24 at 00:37
  • 1
    Some of these examples are semi-illiterate even if you ignore the agreement of subject and verb. I might accept that "the heroes of the Justice Society" are "the only thing" in someone's way, since they collectively form a single, identifiable entity, but "feral ponies, radical seniors, common sense, and Duncan's inability to do anything without a list"? These cannot be "the only thing." These are four very different things. In this case the verb are is the only sensible choice because the subject things is the only sensible choice. – David K Mar 20 '24 at 01:24
  • I mean a lot of native speakers also say things like "could of" etc. but that doesn't make right either. – Sursula Mar 20 '24 at 07:38
  • @Sursula The proper pronunciation of both unstressed auxiliary have and unstressed of is /əv/. That's what people like the king of England say! – Araucaria - Not here any more. Mar 20 '24 at 07:58
  • As David K points out, you can get away with this in spoken English. The issue is not the speaker's failure to use the correct verb. The issue is the speaker's failure to pluralize the first noun -- the only thing[s]. The speaker is talking about many things as evidenced by the list. It is difficult, however, to enunciate the words things standing. Much easier to meld them into the singular. – EllieK Mar 20 '24 at 12:25
  • @EllieK How about "The only thing we saw were"? – Araucaria - Not here any more. Mar 20 '24 at 13:10
  • @Astralbee No, I just used one phrase to collect a quarter of a million examples. I could have used many, many different ones. Try looking the one I made up for Mari-Lou A The only thing we saw were etc. They're all over the place and they exist because [The only thing + relative clause] is effectively a type of pseudo-cleft. And agreement in pseudo clefts (like the all-clefts in Lambie's answer) is well-known to often follow NP2 instead of NP1. I find your answer, which ignores the facts of what happens the language, far more bizarre! – Araucaria - Not here any more. Mar 20 '24 at 22:58
  • It's interesting. To me, the "are" version sounds wrong, but as I point out in my comment under Astralbee's answer, this Ngram suggests both are common, though the number of hits is low. – alphabet Mar 21 '24 at 15:12
  • @alphabet I'm currently adding some "the only thing we saw were" examples mainly from academic university presses and journals (or other reputable publishers)/ See what you think about those. Might be a few minutes. – Araucaria - Not here any more. Mar 21 '24 at 15:18
  • @Araucaria-Nothereanymore. I don't doubt that many others find those sentences perfectly acceptable in any register, and certainly some of your examples sound better than others. It seems like one of those cases where intuitions differ between native speakers. – alphabet Mar 21 '24 at 15:20
  • @alphabet What do you think about those? – Araucaria - Not here any more. Mar 21 '24 at 15:35
  • 1
    @Araucaria-Nothereanymore. For some reason, the ones with "The only thing we saw" sound much better to me. But I suspect different speakers' intuitions will be all over the map. – alphabet Mar 21 '24 at 17:47
  • @alphabet Might be because the examples are better, or as Mari-Lou says there's an intervening we, or summat. – Araucaria - Not here any more. Mar 21 '24 at 17:49
22

Locusts might be plural, but 'thing' is the subject, and that is singular, so you should use is:

The only thing we haven't seen is locusts.

There must be subject-verb agreement. The subject is singular, so the verb form (in this case, is/are are forms of the verb to be) must match that.

Plural nouns, like 'locusts' can often be used as the generic plural to refer to that thing in general, or as a collected group.

Example:

  • My favourite fruit is bananas.
  • My biggest fear is spiders.

In these examples, 'bananas' and 'spiders' represent all bananas and spiders in general. It would be ridiculous to say "my favourite fruit is a banana" - it would sound like you have one special banana that you love. Likewise, in your example, 'locusts' means the insect in general, not any specific group of locusts, which is why they can be referred to as the singular 'thing' that has not been seen.

It is true that, sometimes, the verb can agree with the individuals of a group even when the group is the subject but normally only when both are named and only to emphasise the individuality of the group members. And of course, even native speakers make mistakes. So don't be misled by Google results that show the contrary. Google the phrase "the only thing is" and the erroneous "the only thing are", and you will get results for both - however, the first will get you 49,300,000 results, the first of which is a dictionary definition of the phrase; the second, wrong phrase, gets you 1,140,000 (less than 3% of the combined results) and the top results are two Stack Exchange ELL pages (one is yours) asking the question if the phrase is right or wrong. So anything but the usual subject-verb agreement you would expect to find is very uncommon indeed.

Astralbee
  • 100,700
  • 2
  • 111
  • 222
  • 3
    Fear is a collection of fears? Fruit is a collection of fruits? Really? – Lambie Mar 17 '24 at 21:54
  • 7
    @lambie No, you've completely misunderstood. It's not the fear or fruit that are generic, but the spiders and the bananas. Keep up. In the OP's example, 'locusts' is also a singular, generic noun – Astralbee Mar 17 '24 at 22:22
  • 2
    https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/153971/all-they-need-is-some-words-or-all-they-need-are-some-words/481677#481677 – Lambie Mar 17 '24 at 22:56
  • 4
    Your answer is a bit off the mark: (1) It does not address the inversions causing the confusion. (2) The "generic plural" reference is an irrelevant distraction; this is not the issue here. (3) You could also try to clear up the OP's confusion about the grammatical role of "the locusts", which is essential to understanding why this construction is difficult to analyze. – Peter - Reinstate Monica Mar 18 '24 at 11:01
  • 2
    @Peter-ReinstateMonica I don't address anything in other incorrect answers because that's not what one should do in an answer - I've used comments for that. I've just focused on the OP's question, and I've addressed it by showing that verb has to agree with the subject. – Astralbee Mar 18 '24 at 11:26
  • One of the reasons for the trouble in this and similar constructions is the divergence of the numerus between subject and predicate noun. That is unusual; Latin, for example, demands congruent predicate nouns: Puer ambulat laetus / pueri ambulant laeti (I hope my Latin didn't fail me here). In English this is usually maintained for nouns: "The waiters are all men", not "man". "These animals are tigers", not "tiger". But "The thing we have is locusts"!? And don't tell me "locusts" is not a plural ;-): "Locusts are flying insects." – Peter - Reinstate Monica Mar 18 '24 at 11:36
  • I didn't mean for you to address other answers but the reversion or reversibility of the construction -- it may not be clear that thing is the subject! -- as well as the confusion in the question (not in any answer, even though that can be helpful to clarify one's difference in opinion). – Peter - Reinstate Monica Mar 18 '24 at 11:39
  • @Peter-ReinstateMonica What I find odd is the refusal to deal with the reversals/inversions. Not that they are "in the sentence" but that are used comparatively to show that flexibility here. Comparison in linguistics is one of the few methods/techniques that most linguists agree on. – Lambie Mar 18 '24 at 22:30
  • Why do you reckon "thing" is the subject? I'd argue this sentence is a simple re-ordering of the sentence "Locusts are the only thing we haven't seen", where "locusts" is clearly the subject. – glibg10b Mar 19 '24 at 05:57
  • @glibg10b I think that analysis is part of the question or problem here. I'm in no position to make that call (for example, I have not read nor do I own any of the quoted relevant grammar books). But let's just say that if you start a sentence with "The problem is..." there is little doubt about the subject. – Peter - Reinstate Monica Mar 19 '24 at 06:10
  • @Peter-ReinstateMonica "Someone's at the door. Who is it?" "It's the plumbers." Or this: https://cosmology.carnegiescience.edu/timeline/1610/turtles-all-the-way-down.html – David K Mar 20 '24 at 02:31
  • 1
    "The wages of sin is death." (Rom. 6:23, KJV). – benwiggy Mar 20 '24 at 14:51
  • @benwiggy aside from the KJV being written in early modern English and not at all comparable to modern English, "death" is something of an exception anyway because used this way it is a non-countable noun. The structure of the phrase focuses on the singular outcome for all people despite the plural nature of the 'wages'. – Astralbee Mar 20 '24 at 15:40
  • "my favorite fruit is the banana" would be perfectly acceptable... "the banana" being in this case a placeholder for "all bananas". I am sure there's a special word for that... – Floris Mar 20 '24 at 22:39
  • @Floris yes that would be a good alternative. But there's also a clear right and wrong in the OP's question. – Astralbee Mar 20 '24 at 22:41
  • 2
    Your Google search results turn up a lot of cases where "The only thing is" is followed by a singular noun, which isn't the case we're discussing here. This ngram suggests both are common with a plural noun, but admittedly the number of hits is low. – alphabet Mar 21 '24 at 15:09
  • @alphabet the verb agreement is with the subject noun, which is "thing". And what follows ought to be a singular thing, but as my answer explains it can also be a generic or group noun and these can appear plural but are treated as singular. Ngrams have their place, but not here, because there are so many different constructions that could be made, you couldn't capture them all. Coincidentally, I've spent the day on an interview panel seeing candidates for a senior data analysis role. I didn't give the job to someone who used ngrams as an example of analysis, because they used them wrong, too. – Astralbee Mar 21 '24 at 17:16
  • @Astralbee While thing is singular, in certain contexts singular nouns can, or must, agree with plural verb forms. Compare: "A bunch of people were standing outside." – alphabet Mar 21 '24 at 17:54
  • @alphabet that's an exception rather than contra-evidence. 'Bunch' is a very informal group term that emphasises the volume or formation of the people rather than collecting them together. In US English especially, it can just mean "a lot". So the verb agrees with 'people' because the emphasis remains on their individuality. If it was a more specific, recognisable 'bunch', more like a gang, you might say "that bunch of people is back again". And of course, you can have lots of non-count nouns too. As our US speakers might say, one of the answers on here is 'a bunch of crap'. – Astralbee Mar 21 '24 at 18:33
  • @Astralbee That's one exception. This case, the one in the OP's example, is another exception, as shown by the fact that a large number of native speakers use it and find it acceptable. – alphabet Mar 21 '24 at 21:03
14

Very often in speech–less rarely in print–native speakers will instinctively prefer the plural form of the verb when it follows a plural pronoun (we, they, you) and the adjacent countable noun or noun phrase is plural, even though the antecedent subject is singular.

From Google Books

  1. The conduct of the police was beyond all praise, for they were unarmed. The only thing THEY had were truncheons, and there were very poor weapons for dealing with men firing Webley revolvers. No praise could be too high and no admiration too great for the way which the brave police officers have maintained the noble traditions of their force.
    Source: The Parliamentary Debates: House of Lords official report (1941)

From a prescriptivist point of view, the grammatically correct version would be "The only things they had were truncheons…”

  1. The only thing WE did not eat were the butter and cream because I knew that Brucellosis was still widespread in Britain. Never once in Britain did I knowingly eat or drink uncooked fresh British dairy products.
    Source: Oxford Angel: The 91st General Hospital in World War II. (1966)

Similarly a prescriptivist might insist that the verb (be) agrees with the singular subject, i.e. "The only thing we did not eat was the butter because I knew…” which means the term cream has to be eliminated from the narrative or else we "must" pluralise the subject i.e. "…the only things … were butter and cream…”

  1. Let me emphasize that the one thing WE did not have were good, solid numbers. We didn't have market data. It was a big guess. For instance if, if the market is for blue hula hoops and you're getting ready to sell red one with sequins and tassels, there isn't a market for your product;…
    Source: Workshop on Enzyme Economics: (1975)

  2. Any enquiry by the tax payers would have readily shown that the claims of value made by Jackie Fine Arts to the taxpayers before the first acquisitions were totally unsupported in fact and the only thing THEY bought were tax losses.
    Source: American Federal Tax Reports (1989)

  3. Last decade, our shining towers fell, our cities drowned, and our currency lost much of its value. Heavily armed soldiers patrolled our city streets during color-coded "terrorist" alerts. About the only thing WE didn't see were actual zombies
    Source: Horror Films FAQ (2013) By John Kenneth Muir

  4. One thing WE did not see were patients with frontal lobe lesions. Even though some of the research we will talk about had already taken place when I was in medical school in the early 1980s, the frontal lobes were still referred to as the silent lobes.
    source: Frontal Fatigue
    The Impact of Modern Life and Technology on Mental Illness (2021) By Dr. Mark Rego

  5. The Banquet maître d' made an announcement at the end of the function to explain the situation and the game plan to get sleep, makeshift bed and washing stuff, towels etc. The only thing WE did not have were toothbrushes. Had there been a drugstore in the center…
    Source: tales Trebbiano (2021)

Mari-Lou A
  • 27,037
  • 13
  • 72
  • 125
  • 1
    +1 Nice post. I don't know the relative figures, but I do agree, intuitively, that an intervening plural NP does indeed increase the chance of a plural verb. – Araucaria - Not here any more. Mar 18 '24 at 17:36
  • 1
    I thought I'd try out your theory a bit and googled "the only thing we saw were. Tens of thousand of results. – Araucaria - Not here any more. Mar 18 '24 at 17:51
  • Yes, a lot of examples, use of the word prescriptivist but no explanation as to why the verb is plural coming after phrases like "the only thing". I explained both the grammar and to boot cited an ELU answer. Go figure... – Lambie Mar 18 '24 at 20:41
  • @Lambie Please don't be bitter. Your answer was the first to say it's acceptable to use the plural verb "are" with a singular subject, and you got 7 upvotes and 7 downvotes. Your examples with All you need are/were are, in my eyes, perfectly grammatical, I don't see a singular subject with a plural verb. I don't think why OP's sentence the plural verb is in fact an example of inverse copular construction. John, Peter and Sam are* the plumbers. Would you use is* here? – Mari-Lou A Mar 18 '24 at 21:10
  • Some would argue that "Locusts are the only thing we haven't seen.” should instead be “Locusts are the only things we haven't seen.” Unlike the examples you cited from Wikipedia, I found examples that are similar to the OP's sentence. And, you may disagree, but I did attempt to explain the construction. – Mari-Lou A Mar 18 '24 at 21:15
  • @Lambie All is more often used with plural verb forms, though sometimes it is used with singular verbs. This happens when we are referring to all as a totality of items under consideration. …: and further: Have all (of) the presents been distributed? All (of) my friends have come to my party. – Mari-Lou A Mar 18 '24 at 21:22
  • @Mari-LouA What you say about the plumbers is not the point. No, I would use the plural verb and my whole point is why one can do that in similar sentences and in the OP's sentence AND in mine that I thought up. Also, bear in mind that "The only thing we haven't seen" is a set phrase and it is not like: "The only things we haven't seen". For the inverse copular construction you keep the verb as is. The boy is the guilty party. The guilty party is the boy. For a singular example [haha]. Right now: I have zero upvotes. Zero. So, I am somewhat miffed. :) – Lambie Mar 18 '24 at 21:26
  • @Lambie I didn't upvote because (1) your quotes are all with "all" which moves the goal posts because "all" can arguably be considered a plural ("All are healthy"); (2) You simply quote Wikipedia with examples that do not apply because they are singular/singular cases; and you quote without comment which is insufficient; (3) The post is poorly edited; (4) You do not actually present an argument, a conclusion or an answer! – Peter - Reinstate Monica Mar 19 '24 at 06:50
  • Good point that the plural pronoun may make the plural verb more likely! – Peter - Reinstate Monica Mar 19 '24 at 07:06
  • This seems to happen only a) in a copular construction b) with a plural complement and c) a relative clause coming between the subject and the verb d) which itself has a plural subject. Thus, "the only thing (that; RC) we (pl. RC s.) didn't see were (cop.) actual zombies (pl. comp.)." is fine, but "the only thing (that; RC) we (pl. RC s.) have to fear is (cop.) fear itself (sing. comp.)." But also, I feel strongly that "The only thing I didn't see were actual zombies" is wrong. So I think it's a combination of the plural RC subject and the plural matrix complement that triggers this. – A. R. Mar 19 '24 at 12:51
  • @Peter-ReinstateMonica I give my readers the chance to understand that A=B and B=A are the same thing. And the copular in those are the equal signs. – Lambie Mar 19 '24 at 14:11
6

The only thing we haven't seen are locusts.

You are right that we should use is as the subject the only thing is singular. The noun locusts, however, is not the object; it's the subject complement. Copulas are intransitive.

Seowjooheng Singapore
  • 11,501
  • 2
  • 9
  • 29
4

"The only thing we haven't seen are locusts."

Locusts are the only thing we haven't seen.

Other examples:

  • All we need for the party are clams.
  • Clams are all we need for the party.
  • All you told me were lies.
  • Lies are all you told me.

And some examples from all we need is and all we need are:

  • All we need are a few symbols here and there.

  • All we need are words like 'reason' and 'evidence'.

  • All we need are the numbers.

See the full ELU answer.

Wikipedia

In linguistics, inverse copular constructions, named after Moro (1997), are a type of inversion in English where canonical SCP word order (subject-copula-predicative expression, e.g. Fred is the plumber) is reversed in a sense, so that one appears to have the order PCS instead (predicative expression-copula-subject, e.g. The plumber is Fred). The verb in these constructions is always the copula be (am, are, is, was, were). Inverse copular constructions are intriguing because they render the distinction between subject and predicative expression difficult to maintain. The confusion has led to focused study of these constructions,2 and their impact on the theory of grammar may be great since they appear to challenge the initial binary division of the sentence (S) into a subject noun phrase (NP) and a predicate verb phrase (VP) (S → NP VP), this division being at the core of all phrase structure grammars (as opposed to dependency grammars, which do not acknowledge the binary division).

Inverse copular constructions involve nouns and noun phrases, but they do not allow the post-copula nominal to be a personal pronoun:

a. The cause of the riot is a picture on the wall.
b. A picture on thewall is the cause of the riot. - Inverse copular construction
c. *A picture on the wall is it. - Post-verb subject cannot be a personal pronoun.
a. Fred is the plumber.
b. The plumber is Fred. - Inverse copular construction
c. *The plumber is he. - Post-verb subject cannot be a personal pronoun.

The defining trait of the inverse copular constructions is that two counts of inversion appear to have occurred: the normal subject has inverted to a post-verb position, and the predicative nominal has inverted to the pre-verb position. The verb is a finite form of the copula 'be' (am, are, is, was, were). This type of inversion is generally NOT possible with other verbs.

Wikipedia

Laurel
  • 15,632
  • 3
  • 42
  • 73
Lambie
  • 44,522
  • 4
  • 33
  • 88
  • 3
    This answer is totally wrong. – Astralbee Mar 17 '24 at 21:12
  • 4
    @Astralbee Is it? Why? I'm not an English grammarian but the logic in this answer appears sound, and the quote correct. – Peter - Reinstate Monica Mar 18 '24 at 04:27
  • @Peter-ReinstateMonica The "logic" seems to be that, if you completely rewrite the sentence and reverse the subject and predicate nominative you can use 'are', therefore that must be correct for the original sentence, too. That's not logic - that's proving that 2+2=5. Have you read my answer - the one with the highest number of upvotes? – Astralbee Mar 18 '24 at 09:08
  • 2
    @Astralbee Well, arguably you do not "completely rewrite the sentence" but revert " two counts of inversion" (Wikipedia) in PCS to restore the standard order of an English sentence. Once the standard order SCP is established, it is evident that the formal subject is a plural which would require a plural verb. If we believe the Wikipedia article (which must be correct -- I have written it only yesterday! ;-) ), Englieh grammar requires that "the copula agrees with the singular predicative expression to its left as opposed to with the plural subject to its right"... – Peter - Reinstate Monica Mar 18 '24 at 10:47
  • 2
    @Astralbee ... but that's not as clear-cut as you make it. The actual subject retreats to the background so much that the predicative expression takes on its role and topples entire grammar theories. As a German native speaker, I feel a certain grammatical tension with "the problem is the teachers", and I'm not perfectly sure whether the copula cannot be kept congruent with the actual subject on occasion. But then English (also: which English!?) is confused about singular and plural to begin with ("the police are here", but "the United States is a country"). – Peter - Reinstate Monica Mar 18 '24 at 10:55
  • @Peter-ReinstateMonica The Wikipedia entry has been grossly misquoted, because it speaks about other languages as well as English. The relevant point from the entry is "In the inverse copular constructions, the copula agrees with the singular predicative expression to its left as opposed to with the plural subject to its right. This phenomenon seems to be limited to English". In English, the subject-verb agreement is required. – Astralbee Mar 18 '24 at 11:12
  • @JanusBahsJacquet Well said ;-). Alas, I understand Astralbee's argument and exasperation better now, I think: "thing" is indeed the subject here, and not a predicative expression in an unusual position, as I perceived it originally. I like BillJ's insistence in the comments that the construction is "reversible", not actually "reversed". But it is close, as other languages show, and possibly can be interpreted in the "German" way as an actual reversion, retaining the plural verb form congruent with the plural subject which just happens to be trailing. – Peter - Reinstate Monica Mar 18 '24 at 11:12
  • 7
    @Peter Yes, thing is undoubtedly the subject. But as described in CoolHandLouis’ answer to the related question and linguisticturn’s on ELU, that doesn’t necessarily matter in this particular construction. There are few cases where going with straight-up subject–verb agreement would sound wrong, but there are enough cases where proximity agreement doesn’t sound wrong that blanket statements that subject–verb agreement is the only option cannot be upheld. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Mar 18 '24 at 12:05
  • 2
    @Astralbee Exactly what Janus said x 5. – Araucaria - Not here any more. Mar 18 '24 at 14:05
  • 1
    @JanusBahsJacquet When you say that English speakers "naturally produce forms like the one quoted", are you saying that you acknowledge it is wrong, but people say it anyway? Yes, native speakers make mistakes in their own language, especially when speaking extemporaneously. Most people begin a sentence without knowing exactly how it is going to end, and that's why there isn't always subject-verb agreement. But this isn't a site for teaching people how to make mistakes - it's a site for teaching the correct grammar. – Astralbee Mar 18 '24 at 16:13
  • @Araucaria-Nothereanymore. I don't normally respond to people who aren't there so you can just read what I replied to Janus. – Astralbee Mar 18 '24 at 16:14
  • I wonder if anybody bothered with: "All we need for the party are clams. Clams are all we need for the party." Would: "All we need for the party is clams." be a) equally acceptable? or b) unacceptable? The literature (which I seem to have misplaced from the Internet) seems to think both are acceptable. That said, if are is acceptable, why isn't my explanation valid?? [two question marks just means very surprised.] – Lambie Mar 18 '24 at 16:36
  • @JanusBahsJacquet and Astralbee - Thought we could do with seeing what people do in real life. See my post! – Araucaria - Not here any more. Mar 18 '24 at 17:17
  • @Astralbee This: "The "logic" seems to be that, if you completely rewrite the sentence and reverse the subject and predicate nominative you can use 'are', therefore that must be correct for the original sentence, too. is not true." All we need for the party are clams is reversed in: Clams are all we need for the party. The Subject and Complement are reversed, but there is no complete rewriting. Also, the examples are contrastive. Neither sentence is a reversal of the other until one shows that to be the case for these types of copulars. And I did not misquote the article. – Lambie Mar 18 '24 at 20:47
  • 7
    @Astralbee No, I am saying that native speakers naturally say this all the time, with absolutely no notion that it is ‘wrong’, and this by definition makes it not wrong. It is not a mistake, but a very common and easily reproducible part of English grammar. To claim that it is wrong is akin to saying that it’s ‘wrong’ to end a sentence with a preposition, despite the fact that native speakers do it all the time. Yes, people make mistakes in their own languages; this just isn’t one of them. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Mar 18 '24 at 21:27
  • 1
    Using "things...are locusts" would imply that there are many individual things one hasn't seen, all of which are locusts, and would not imply anything about whether there might exist locusts that one has seen. Using "thing...is" would imply that "locusts" is a singular category of things one hasn't seen. Using "thing...are" may not fit normal grammar, but conveys a notion that "locusts" shifted from referring to an abstract category when the speaker began the sentence, to referring to the insects that were observed before the speaker finished. – supercat Mar 18 '24 at 22:02
  • 1
    @Peter-ReinstateMonica 'I feel a certain grammatical tension with "the problem is the teachers"' - I read that and had a flashback to Jeff Wayne's musical adaptation of War of the Worlds, in which the Martians discuss colonising Earth. One of them says 'The problem is the humans', in a sort of Dalek voice. Of course, one would not expect Martians to be expert grammarians. – Michael Harvey Mar 21 '24 at 19:53
3

To answer your question regarding why "The only thing" is followed by "are":

The most likely explanation is that the speaker simply preferred to express it in that manner, and the statement was directly quoted by the reporter. There likely isn't a deeper reason beyond the speaker's preference.

As a native speaker, I also tried saying the sentence with both "are" and "is" to gauge how each felt to me. I believe "are" sounds better because it creates a smoother rhythm in the sentence. Almost like it's a haiku.

Read this out-loud like it's a poem.

The only thing

We haven't seen

Are locusts

When speaking, the rules serve as guidelines. If our speech sounds okay and the meaning is conveyed, it's generally acceptable. The only real-world situations I've encountered where strict adherence to rules matters are when the writing is intended for widespread publication, is a formal document like a resume or contract, or is a school assignment.

Wrexbe
  • 41
  • 1