"goodnight moon" is not wrong

[salsah]

or, margret wise brown is not wrong. dh insists that the book is wrong and he even refuses to read it the way it is written:

"in the great green room there was . . ."

dh changes it to:

"in the great green room there were . . ."

he says that because there is more than one thing in the room listed, it should be "were."

dh won't let it go. i have to read it every night (and at nap time too), and he has to bring it up everytime, "that book is wrong, i'm telling you, it should be "were."

anyone know which is correct?

[writermama]

Well, I say, it's written in verse, rhyming verse no less, so normal rules of grammar do not apply.

[maestramommy]

I don't have the book in front of me, but if the first object listed in that sentence is singular, then it should read, "there was." I thought the sentence read something like, "In great green room, there was a ____." Because another reads "And there were 3 little mittens" or maybe kittens. Anyway, look at what comes right after in the sentence.

[EllasMum]

:yeahthat:

Knew my linguistics degree would come in handy someday! ;)

[lizajane]

the book is right. i was an english teacher. i have an english degree. you would not say, " in my room in my last house, there were a chair and a bed." you would say there WAS a chair and a bed."

you would say, "in my old room there were two pieces of furniture, a chair and a bed."

you just change the words to find the correct grammer. just like with "she and i went to the store." instead of "me and her went to the store." because you would never say, "me went to the store." or "her went to the store."

[Emmas Mom]

In the great green room there were a telephone...???? Uh, nope. Definitely was. You win. ;)

I can recite this story in my sleep. Please tell me I'm not the only one! lol

[goodnightmoon]

Yep. I agree with you (and the others).

p.s. I just finished reading some of the other controversial posts and am SO relieved this wasn't a comment about me. :) Whew!

[lisams]

Yep. I agree with you (and the others).



There ya go, an answer directly from goodnightmoon herself!

I agree with everyone, too!

[justlearning]

the book is right. i was an english teacher. i have an english degree. you would not say, " in my room in my last house, there were a chair and a bed." you would say there WAS a chair and a bed."

you would say, "in my old room there were two pieces of furniture, a chair and a bed."

Lizajane,

I have a question for you. Can you please describe the grammar rule that explains why you would say "there was a chair and a bed" instead of "there were a chair and a bed"? In the sentence above, there are two subjects--chair and bed--so it seems to me that the correct verb would be were (plural). Of course, "there" is the adverb, not the subject. This same sentence could be stated as "A chair and a bed were in my last house." IMO, it doesn't sound right to say "A chair and a bed was in my last house."

The only reason, I believe, why you would use a singular verb in a situation like this is if the two nouns are actually viewed as a singular subject because they go so closely together. For example, "there was a desk and chair in the corner of my room" sounds acceptable to me, as does "a desk and chair was in the corner of my room." In this case, desk and chair seem to go hand and hand and thus could be viewed as a singular subject (although a plural verb would still be correct). Is this what you were thinking about the close relationship between chair and bed, or is there another grammar rule that I'm missing here?

BTW, I only took the two basic English classes in college, but I happen to love talking about grammar rules so I just had to ask you this. :)

[justlearning]

I don't have the book in front of me, but if the first object listed in that sentence is singular, then it should read, "there was." I thought the sentence read something like, "In great green room, there was a ____." Because another reads "And there were 3 little mittens" or maybe kittens. Anyway, look at what comes right after in the sentence.

Again, I don't have an English degree but I believe you're thinking about another grammar rule that does take into account the subject closest to the verb. Here's that rule: If one subject is singular and one plural and the words are connected by the words or, nor, neither/nor, either/or, and not only/but also, you use the verb form of the subject that is nearest the verb.

This rule doesn't apply to situations, though, where the subject is compound (i.e., multiple subjects connected by and). In those cases, the verb should always be plural regardless of whether the subject closest to the verb is singular or plural.

Again, this is what I recall so please correct me if I'm wrong. :)

[justlearning]

After writing my last two posts, I did a quick google search and found this helpful website that discusses subect-verb agreement: http://www.towson.edu/ows/moduleSVAGR.htm

To answer your question, it sounds like your DH is correct. It's been a long time since I've read the book and I don't want to go into my son's room to get the book while he's sleeping now. So, I will say this--he's correct if in fact there are a series of nouns (functioning as a compound subject) following that "there was." However, if it says something like "there was a pair of mittens" and then it proceeds to start a new subject/verb phrase, then that "was" would be correct.

Of course, now I'm going to run into my son's room first thing when he wakes up to read it. Yes, I'm a grammar freak--anyone want to diagram some sentences with me? ;)

[srhs]

IMHO, as you have inverted subjects (and a certain run-on) it's a tough call. Dropping "there", would you reword it:

1. The telephone, red balloon, and picture were in the great green room.
OR
2. The telephone was in the great green room. The red balloon was in the great green room. The picture of the cow jumping over the moon was in the great green room.
?


I agree with writermama, though, all rules bow down to creative license.

[lizajane]

Lizajane,

I have a question for you. Can you please describe the grammar rule that explains why you would say "there was a chair and a bed" instead of "there were a chair and a bed"? In the sentence above, there are two subjects--chair and bed--so it seems to me that the correct verb would be were (plural). Of course, "there" is the adverb, not the subject. This same sentence could be stated as "A chair and a bed were in my last house." IMO, it doesn't sound right to say "A chair and a bed was in my last house."
------
because you are saying, "there was a chair. and there was a bed." the second "there was" is implied. "there" isn't an adverb. an adverb describes a verb. like she ran quickly. quickly describes how she ran. i think "there" is a pronoun. but i am not certain. chair and bed are direct objects. what "was" there? a chair. just like "she threw the ball." what did she throw? a ball. you say "a chair and bed were..." because in that sentence, they are the subject. so the subject is plural, so the verb is plural.
-----

The only reason, I believe, why you would use a singular verb in a situation like this is if the two nouns are actually viewed as a singular subject because they go so closely together. For example, "there was a desk and chair in the corner of my room" sounds acceptable to me, as does "a desk and chair was in the corner of my room." In this case, desk and chair seem to go hand and hand and thus could be viewed as a singular subject (although a plural verb would still be correct). Is this what you were thinking about the close relationship between chair and bed, or is there another grammar rule that I'm missing here?
------
a desk and a chair was in the corner... is actually incorrect. again, plural subject. two objects. same as you would say, "two objects were in the corner of my room."
-----
BTW, I only took the two basic English classes in college, but I happen to love talking about grammar rules so I just had to ask you this. :)

answers in quoted text above...

but wanted to add that i am perfectly willing to be corrected if someone has written evidence that i am wrong! i am going on knowledge in my head, not something i looked up. my dad has a phD in english, so my grammer was corrected a LOT as a child... so the rules are pretty stuck in my brain.

[maestramommy]

Again, I don't have an English degree but I believe you're thinking about another grammar rule that does take into account the subject closest to the verb. Here's that rule: If one subject is singular and one plural and the words are connected by the words or, nor, neither/nor, either/or, and not only/but also, you use the verb form of the subject that is nearest the verb.

This rule doesn't apply to situations, though, where the subject is compound (i.e., multiple subjects connected by and). In those cases, the verb should always be plural regardless of whether the subject closest to the verb is singular or plural.

Again, this is what I recall so please correct me if I'm wrong. :)

I don't have a degree in English either, and I just barely followed what you wrote:p But I wasn't think of that rule, I don't know that rule specifically. But if you take the first paragraph of the OP's example, I don't think it's correct. Because then it would read "In the great green room, there were a telephone, and a red balloon, and picture of-"

One thing I just noticed is that there are no punctuation marks in this book. So no separation of sentences by period. However, each line begins with a capital letter, so I always read as though there are periods.

[justlearning]

edited to add that I started writing this after reading srhs' post so she's the PP I'm referring to. After dealing with the kids while typing my post, I now see that others have contributed to the conversation as well so the following is somewhat redundant (repeats what lizajane referred to regarding the implied "there was")...

OK, this is my last post in this thread, I promise. :)

My son woke up so now I have the book in front of me. First of all, I agree that creative license does override all grammatical rules anyhow. But, I also agree with the PP that it's actually OK grammatically as well.

Here's the text in question:
In the great green room
There was a telephone
And a red balloon
And a picture of--
The cow jumping over the moon

The way this is written, it sounds better with the "was" than "were" because it's not simply stating a list of inverted subjects. That is, it doesn't say "there was a telephone, red balloon, and a picture." Instead, it sounds like it's saying that "there was a telephone" and--oh yes—“there was a red balloon” and--oh yes—“there was a picture of the cow jumping over the moon.” So, it does sound like the "there was" is implied in each line, thus making them separate subject/verb clauses (requiring the singular verb) instead of one combined clause (that would require the plural verb).

On a personal note, I'm realizing that I need to find some grammar discussion board. I'd save a lot of money if I just hung out there instead of in the bargains forum here, which leads me to "spave" way too much. :)

[srhs]

The way this is written, it sounds better with the "was" than "were" because it's not simply stating a list of inverted subjects. That is, it doesn't say "there was a telephone, red balloon, and a picture." Instead, it sounds like it's saying that "there was a telephone" and--oh yes—“there was a red balloon” and--oh yes—“there was a picture of the cow jumping over the moon.” So, it does sound like the "there was" is implied in each line, thus making them separate subject/verb clauses (requiring the singular verb) instead of one combined clause (that would require the plural verb).

I agree! I just meant my post in a "depends how you look at it" way. This is how I personally do too.


On a personal note, I'm realizing that I need to find some grammar discussion board. I'd save a lot of money if I just hung out there instead of in the bargains forum here, which leads me to "spave" way too much.

ITA! :wink2: Seriously, what are we English-teacher-or-grammar-nerds-turned-SAHMs to do with our grammatical ponderings? Two weeks ago, I sat in church 'discussing' the possessive form of Jesus on my English-teacher-friend's notes.

eta--Wait! I take it back! I don't want to identify myself as a former teacher because I always use "ramble voice" as my tone of choice on these boards. When DS is on my lap, I don't even proofread! You all will think I'm a moron now that you know I actually know better.

[C99]

I really like Patricia T. O'Connor's book Woe Is I for grammar questions like these. :) She actually addresses the OP's question in chapter 4:


If the subject nearer the verb is singular, the verb is singular...If the subject nearer the verb is plural, the verb is plural...

In this case, the first subject in "In the great green room, there was a telephone, and a red balloon..." is telephone, which is singular.

[elephantmeg]

my dad can still recite about 2/3 of it and I'm the youngest at 28. So no, it's not abnormal that you can recite it. I have almost all of it and big red barn memorized but sadly DS prefers books about dumptrucks etc.

[brittone2]

eta--Wait! I take it back! I don't want to identify myself as a former teacher because I always use "ramble voice" as my tone of choice on these boards. When DS is on my lap, I don't even proofread! You all will think I'm a moron now that you know I actually know better.

LOL. I'm not a former teacher, but my writing here has deteriorated with the arrival of each child. When I was TTC/preggo it wasn't too bad. Then came the first nursing baby, and it slipped. Then we added a 2nd child, and well...it is pretty pitiful now. I barely have time to get a post typed out let alone proofread or really think about my wording. Sigh.

[LarsMal]

eta--Wait! I take it back! I don't want to identify myself as a former teacher because I always use "ramble voice" as my tone of choice on these boards. When DS is on my lap, I don't even proofread! You all will think I'm a moron now that you know I actually know better.

Oh please! ;) I'm a former teacher, too, and sometimes I look at what I've written and think it is VERY VERY wrong!!!

Oh well, what can you do? Pregnancy, SAHM, out of practice, no time to check, it's all good! No one holds it against you. (At least I hope not, or I look like moron, too!)

[salsah]

thank you everyone. i made up the rule based on what sounds right ("were" sounds terribly wrong). but sometimes what is acceptable in spoken english isn't actually grammatically correct. nice to know that my made up rule is a real rule. hopefully this will convince dh (not that he will admit that he was wrong -- he can never do that). but at least he will (hopefully) stop reading it incorrectly.

[salsah]

Yep. I agree with you (and the others).

p.s. I just finished reading some of the other controversial posts and am SO relieved this wasn't a comment about me. :) Whew!
oh no! sorry for the confusion. definitely, not you. however, if you had agreed with my dh . . . ;)