Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
correct inversion
There were a lot of people in the stadium.
If I want to change it to one emphasized, is the following possible grammatically?
I am asking with respect to the inversion rule of the sentence.
In the stadium there were a lot of people.
If I want to change it to one emphasized, is the following possible grammatically?
I am asking with respect to the inversion rule of the sentence.
In the stadium there were a lot of people.
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mankak. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
mankak - the problem you have is that "in the stadium" is a phrase telling you where the people were, but the people are still the subject of the sentence and inverting the word order just doesn't sound right. What you need to do is make the stadium the subject of the sentence and then tell us something about how many people there are - e.g. the stadium was filled with people.
dundurn
Thank you for your comment.
My question point is simple.
There are many people in the stadium.
This is a very normal and common sentence.
But when the adverbial phrase " in the stadium " is put ahead of the sentence , how is the rest part arranged?
Is this question nonsense?
And some helper told me this :
In the stadium are many people.
Regards
Thank you for your comment.
My question point is simple.
There are many people in the stadium.
This is a very normal and common sentence.
But when the adverbial phrase " in the stadium " is put ahead of the sentence , how is the rest part arranged?
Is this question nonsense?
And some helper told me this :
In the stadium are many people.
Regards
"In the stadium, there was a lot of people" or "there were lots of people".
That reads like an answer to a question. The question would be to make clear what was meant. So A says " There were many people in Twickenham " B asks: " Do you mean the stadium, Twickenham, or the town Twickenham ?" A answers : " In the stadium, there was a lot of people " We'd put the words in that order because the important part is 'the stadium': that's the answer and the rest is just an expansion or repetition of the fact of there being many people there.
It's not a very likely construction but it is sound enough. Most people would simply answer " No, the stadium' or " I mean the stadium"
Your friend's suggestion is poor English
That reads like an answer to a question. The question would be to make clear what was meant. So A says " There were many people in Twickenham " B asks: " Do you mean the stadium, Twickenham, or the town Twickenham ?" A answers : " In the stadium, there was a lot of people " We'd put the words in that order because the important part is 'the stadium': that's the answer and the rest is just an expansion or repetition of the fact of there being many people there.
It's not a very likely construction but it is sound enough. Most people would simply answer " No, the stadium' or " I mean the stadium"
Your friend's suggestion is poor English
Mankak, not quite! " A lot of " and "lots of " do not always take a plural verb. So we would say " There was a lot of trouble" " A lot of trouble was caused" " A lot of material was used". We'd also say " Lots of money was spent " and "Lots of time was wasted". In none of those cases is "were" correct. That's because we think of the subject as being singular (trouble,material, money, time ) and it doesn't matter whether 'lot' is singular or plural. 'Lot' or 'lots' is not being thought of by us as the subject
So what of people ? When I wrote "There was a lot of people" I was thinking of 'lot' as the key word, the subject, just as if I had written "There was a crowd of people". I meant there was one group, one lot, of people all in one place.For the answer "In the stadium, there was a lot of people" I would not have written " In the stadium there were a lot of people" ( because "there were.." is plural and 'a lot' is singular and I'm thinking of 'lot' being the subject ). If I wrote "Lots of people..." I'd put 'were' because there I see the key word, the subject, as lot but in the plural, lots, so it takes 'were'. "Lots of people was..." is patently odd and wrong.
We have this trouble all the time in English over thinking singular or plural. " The committee meets on Thursdays. They could not agree in their meeting last week" makes sense because in the first part we are thinking of the committee as an 'it', one body, but in the second we are thinking of it as several individuals, comprising the committee, who could not agree among themselves ! As a matter of style it would be better to make both parts plural . .
So what of people ? When I wrote "There was a lot of people" I was thinking of 'lot' as the key word, the subject, just as if I had written "There was a crowd of people". I meant there was one group, one lot, of people all in one place.For the answer "In the stadium, there was a lot of people" I would not have written " In the stadium there were a lot of people" ( because "there were.." is plural and 'a lot' is singular and I'm thinking of 'lot' being the subject ). If I wrote "Lots of people..." I'd put 'were' because there I see the key word, the subject, as lot but in the plural, lots, so it takes 'were'. "Lots of people was..." is patently odd and wrong.
We have this trouble all the time in English over thinking singular or plural. " The committee meets on Thursdays. They could not agree in their meeting last week" makes sense because in the first part we are thinking of the committee as an 'it', one body, but in the second we are thinking of it as several individuals, comprising the committee, who could not agree among themselves ! As a matter of style it would be better to make both parts plural . .
fredpuli47
Thank you for your specific answer.
I agree to the first paragraph and the third. which are related to uncountable nouns and collective nouns,.
I also agree to your logic explained in the second: a lot does not necessarily tale plural verbs.
But is it more common that a lot is used as simply a crowd , or a group?
Thank you for your specific answer.
I agree to the first paragraph and the third. which are related to uncountable nouns and collective nouns,.
I also agree to your logic explained in the second: a lot does not necessarily tale plural verbs.
But is it more common that a lot is used as simply a crowd , or a group?
Mankak , the trouble with English is that , a lot of the time, all we can say of a sentence is "It looks right" or "It sounds right". Native speakers are rarely called upon to analyse what they say or why they say it. For centuries grammarians tried to find and impose rigid rules and failed because the language does not admit of rigid rules.
The answer to your question is that "a lot of" is usually followed by the plural verb when the speaker thinks of the noun following 'of ' as plural, and singular if singular. So we expect to hear " There were a lot of problems" (not "There was a lot of problems" )but "There was a lot of trouble" and "There were a lot of troubles". As for 'lots of' , we apply the same thinking and would say " There was lots of trouble" (not " There were lots of trouble" ) but " There were lots of troubles".
All of which makes 'There was a lot of people' against 'There were a lot of people' explicable only in terms of the speaker's thinking at the time of speaking, just as he might think of a committee as an 'it' or a 'they'. Both are correct. However we would not say "There was lots of people" partly because we've pluralised the 'lot' and followed it immediately with a verb, which just doesn't sound right in the singular when juxtaposed with 'lots' but logically because by saying 'lots of people' we have stopped thinking of people as a one body in 'a lot' together but as many individuals, singularly and in groups, all over the place, in all parts i.e they are definitely plural , not like 'a crowd' but 'crowds'. There were crowds of people at the stadium.
The answer to your question is that "a lot of" is usually followed by the plural verb when the speaker thinks of the noun following 'of ' as plural, and singular if singular. So we expect to hear " There were a lot of problems" (not "There was a lot of problems" )but "There was a lot of trouble" and "There were a lot of troubles". As for 'lots of' , we apply the same thinking and would say " There was lots of trouble" (not " There were lots of trouble" ) but " There were lots of troubles".
All of which makes 'There was a lot of people' against 'There were a lot of people' explicable only in terms of the speaker's thinking at the time of speaking, just as he might think of a committee as an 'it' or a 'they'. Both are correct. However we would not say "There was lots of people" partly because we've pluralised the 'lot' and followed it immediately with a verb, which just doesn't sound right in the singular when juxtaposed with 'lots' but logically because by saying 'lots of people' we have stopped thinking of people as a one body in 'a lot' together but as many individuals, singularly and in groups, all over the place, in all parts i.e they are definitely plural , not like 'a crowd' but 'crowds'. There were crowds of people at the stadium.
1 to 10 of 10
