# The human race (sing. or pl.?)



## Magg

Hi,

would you tell me the correct form of the verb?

Cheers,
Magg


----------



## Chaucer

Magg said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> would you tell me the correct form of the verb?
> 
> Cheers,
> Magg



SINGULAR: human race as humanity (assuming there is no other human race elsewhere)
human race *is*
human race *will*
human race *was* born

PLURAL: human races  as Asian, Negroid, Caucasian, etc.
human races that *appear *non-human
different human races *are *not sub-species

Sin contexto tal vez quieras decir:
The human (being) *races* (anda a la carrera, o corre una carrera, anda de prisa)?


----------



## Magg

Hi Chaucer,

I thought so, but yesterday night, watching a Woody Allen´s film, the leading actor wrote: *.. the human race were..*, which caught my attention.

Could it depend on American or British English?

M.


----------



## Chaucer

Magg said:
			
		

> Hi Chaucer,
> 
> I thought so, but yesterday night, watching a Woody Allen´s film, the leading actor wrote: *.. the human race were..*, which caught my attention.
> 
> Could it depend on American or British English?
> M.



To avoid controversy, I was giving you the answer that would get you by in the English-speaking world, and that most English speakers would give you; not to mention, the level to what most people learning a second-language are satisified to attain to, especially if it is the level which native speakers have only attained to. Always consider, that native speakers are at different levels of evolution in their own knowledge of their own language (the assumption is that they are constantly questioning and analysing the workings of their own language, which isn't always the case: there is more to language than quantity of vocabulary and knowledge of the grammar rules).

But you have asked:
No, it doesn't have anything to do with its being British or American English.

There has always been a a grammatical question about whether collective nouns [singular] can take a plural verb. The semanticists will argue against pure grammar as being the only determining factor in whether the collective *human race* takes the singular verb or not. The stylists another. I think in Spanish the same issue is involved with *gente*.

You can use the plural, it makes the reader experience one extra little image in the comprehension of *human race*, by alluding to its plurality of membership and make-up; the singular would minimize that image for the readers quicker understanding of the whole as a singular entity. A stylist and semanticist would consider the grammarian point of view-- collective noun, singular verb-- as not having language's possibilities and organicism completely mapped out yet. But grammarians would consider this poetic licence.

Consider other foreros opinions, though. My view of language is that grammar has its limits, and cannot explain why all so-called non-grammatical constructions make complete language sense. The mathematics/logic of grammar is easier to go buy in creating language, it's the scientific view, which must be a part, but not all of the picture.

Also, verify that the phrase you give as an example is not part of subjunctive phrase, part of compound subject, or part of an adjectival phrase:

It seemed as if the *human race were* about to end.
The animal kingdom and the *human race were* about to become extinct.
The diseases that have been the scourge of *the human race* were now resurging.


----------



## RussUS

I have always understood that both singular and plural are correct among groups in the situation in which the individuals of the group don't necessarily act the same:

The human race *is* the most advanced race on our planet. singular--all members of the group are included.

The human race *choose* red half the time, blue one fourth of the time, and green one fourth of the time. plural--all members of the group are accounted for, but act differently.


----------



## cuchuflete

Magg said:
			
		

> Hi Chaucer,
> 
> I thought so, but yesterday night, watching a Woody Allen´s film, the leading actor wrote: *.. the human race were..*, which caught my attention.
> 
> Could it depend on American or British English?
> 
> M.



Hola Magg,

Chaucer has given you a lot to think about.  I tend to agree with him on all points but one:  there is an occasional difference in AE and BE usage of some collective nouns.   I will skip the grammar and semantics discussion, as I have nothing to add to Chaucer's good essay.  I simply state that in my experience it is a little more common to find BE writers using "are" rather than "is" for a collective noun.

I first stumbled across this in business journalism.  It was shocking to me to see things like "General Motors *are* going to introduce a new vehicle...".
This just is not done in AE.  Now that I've seen it many times, I simply accept it.  I have no idea what a grammarian might say.  It doesn't matter.
AE would say *is *and some British writers say *are.* It's a stylistic preference as far as I'm concerned.  

un abrazo,
Qxu


----------



## charmedboi82

Chaucer said:
			
		

> It seemed as if the *human race were* about to end.
> The animal kingdom and the *human race were* about to become extinct.
> The diseases that have been the scourge of *the human race* were now resurging.



All of the uses of 'were' above are valid.

1)  Subjunctive usage..... '*were*' is the only traditionally correct option.
2)  Plural subject --  'animal kingdom' + 'human race' = they *were*....
3)  Plural subject --  The diseases... *were* now resurging.  (...that have been the scourge of the human race = RELATIVE CLAUSE).


----------



## Bahamut

I disagree with #1. I think it's just a common error, like "different than".


----------



## elroy

RussUS said:
			
		

> I have always understood that both singular and plural are correct among groups in the situation in which the individuals of the group don't necessarily act the same:
> 
> The human race *is* the most advanced race on our planet. singular--all members of the group are included.
> 
> The human race *choose* red half the time, blue one fourth of the time, and green one fourth of the time. plural--all members of the group are accounted for, but act differently.



This is what I've learned as well.  Nevertheless, the plural usage still sounds awkward to me.  I usually opt for using such an alternative as "the members of..." when I want to emphasize the members of the group as individuals.



> I disagree with #1. I think it's just a common error, like "different than".



What do you mean?  "Were" is the correct subjunctive form; "was" is a relatively widely used but strictly speaking grammatically incorrect alternative.

He acted as if he were the boss.   
He acted as if he was the boss.   but common


----------



## Bahamut

elroy said:
			
		

> This is what I've learned as well. Nevertheless, the plural usage still sounds awkward to me. I usually opt for using such an alternative as "the members of..." when I want to emphasize the members of the group as individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean? "Were" is the correct subjunctive form; "was" is a relatively widely used but strictly speaking grammatically incorrect alternative.
> 
> He acted as if he were the boss.
> He acted as if he was the boss.   but common


Really? Show me. I'm curious.


----------



## elroy

Bahamut said:
			
		

> Really? Show me. I'm curious.



This is the conjugation of the verb "to be" in the past subjuntive:

I were
you were
he/she/it were
we were
you were
they were

Basically, ALL forms become "were."  Compared with the indicative:

I was
you were
he/she/it was
we were
you were
they were

So basically, the only difference is in the first person singular and the third person singular (I and he/she/it).  The fact that the indicative and the subjunctive are the same form for most of the persons is what leads many people to assume that it is also the same for "I" and "he/she/it."  In reality, however, it is not, so that you have to say

He acted as if he *were * the boss.

or

I acted as if I *were * the boss. 

The reason you use the subjunctive is that it is a hypothetical situation beyond reality.  That is, I am  not the boss, but I acted as if I *were * the boss.  

More examples:

If I *were * a millionaire... (but I am  not)
If he *were * my friend... (but he is  not)

You find the same problem sometimes in the present.  The conjugation of "to be" in the present subjunctive is "be" for all persons:

I be
you be
he/she/it be
we be
you be
they be

In this case, ALL of the forms are different from the corresponding indicative forms but the fact of the matter is that for most verbs only the he/she/it form is different ("he take" instead of "he takes," etc.) so IN GENERAL the indicative and the subjunctive are the same in the present.  Which is what can lead to the usage of the present indicative instead of the present subjunctive.  Here's what you should say:

It is important that we *be * on time. (But people say: that we are...)
It is advisable that he *be * at the party. (But people say: that he is...)

Is it clear now???


----------



## Bahamut

How do I know that this isn't just what you think? If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but there has to be something objective in your assertion.


----------



## elroy

Bahamut said:
			
		

> How do I know that this isn't just what you think? If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but there has to be something objective in your assertion.



I don't see why I would make all of this up...BUT if you need more convincing, just type "subjunctive English" into Google.  Here are some of the results:

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~smusser/englishsubjunctive.html
http://www.englishpage.com/minitutorials/subjunctive.html
http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/061.html


----------



## RussUS

Bahamut said:
			
		

> How do I know that this isn't just what you think? If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but there has to be something objective in your assertion.


 
I don't know what more he can give you. He provided you the complete paradigms of subjunctive for the verb to be, explained why the subjunctive should be used, and gave additional examples.

Maybe the real problem is my thought that Elroy is wrong as to why people make the mistake you seem to want to insist is correct, that being that hardly any American English speakers even know what the subjunctive is or how and when to use it.

This isn't improved any when we have American Football sportscasters from whom we should be able to get correct examples inventing their own method :

Correct:

"Had he caught this pass, he would have scored a touchdown."

Fabian Football Star turned sportscaster:

"If he catches this pass, he scores a touchdown."

Maybe that leaves the point a bit, but to the point, I invite you to read the posts. The original was done by Chaucer who is known as being very knowledgeable in grammar. The "correctness" of it is validated by Charmedboi even though a validation was not requested. Elroy's post was as complete and objective as it could be. I suspect it won't convince you, Bahamut, but he is correct, and you are wrong on this one.

Keep Smilin'

Russ


----------



## charmedboi82

Bahamut said:
			
		

> Really? Show me. I'm curious.



I'm confused.  What do you want shown?  It's a rule that one should use the past subjunctive after 'as if/though/like" in these situations.  The same rule is present in Spanish.

He spent his money as though he were rich.
Gasto' su dinero como si fuera rico.  (Sorry, accents don't work well for me).

Clearer?

Regardless of whether or not he's rich, you would use 'were'.  In 'if' clauses, it can be a little more tricky though since there would be a choice between 'was' and 'were'.


----------



## elroy

> Maybe the real problem is my thought that Elroy is wrong as to why people make the mistake you seem to want to insist is correct, that being that hardly any American English speakers even know what the subjunctive is or how and when to use it.



I'm not entirely sure I get what you're saying here.  What I THINK you're saying is that I have misexplained (is that a word? ) why most people use the indicative instead of the subjunctive.  I agree with you that most speakers of American English don't even know what the subjunctive is, but that's not what I was saying.  I wasn't saying that they know that most forms are the same and have therefore consciously chosen to change the ones that are different into their corresponding indicative forms.  What I'm saying is that in most cases - because the subjunctive is the same as the indicative - people *use the subjunctive without even knowing it. *  They are using the same form as the indicative and are therefore not aware that there is a difference.  They are using the subjunctive only by virtue of the fact that it is identical to the indicative form and not because they know that the situation requires it.  Thus, when the form is different they will use the indicative regardless of the situation because that's not what determines their usage of mood anyway.

Look at these examples:

John acted as if he *knew * the answer.
It is important that you *come * on time.
If I *had * a car, I would drive you.  

In the above examples, there is no debate as to what the correct form should be because there is *only one possibility*.  What most people don't know is that all of the above forms are *subjunctive*.   

So in the few cases in which the subjunctive is different, such as the following, 

If I _were/was_ rich, I would buy a new house.
It is important that he _come/comes_ on time. 

people will choose the "usual" form, that is, "was" and "comes" respectively.  *Were * they aware that they are using the subjunctive, they would know to say "were" and "come" respectively.

I hope it's clear now...  




> Correct:
> 
> "Had he caught this pass, he would have scored a touchdown."
> 
> Fabian Football Star turned sportscaster:
> 
> "If he catches this pass, he scores a touchdown."



I don't know if I'm missing something, but these two sentences seem to mean two different things to me.

The first one sounds as if it is said *after * the fact that the player did not catch the pass.
The second one sounds as if we are still waiting to see whether he will catch the pass.

Neither one sounds incorrect, though.


----------



## elroy

charmedboi82 said:
			
		

> I'm confused.  What do you want shown?  It's a rule that one should use the past subjunctive after 'as if/though/like" in these situations.  The same rule is present in Spanish.
> 
> He spent his money as though he were rich.
> Gasto' su dinero como si fuera rico.  (Sorry, accents don't work well for me).
> 
> Clearer?
> 
> Regardless of whether or not he's rich, you would use 'were'.  In 'if' clauses, it can be a little more tricky though since there would be a choice between 'was' and 'were'.



You are 100% right.

As for "if," the usage of indicative or subjunctive depends on whether you are referring to a hypothetical situation or a legitimate possibility.

If I *am * accepted at that school, I *will attend* it.
(I still don't know if I will be accepted; it is a possibility that may or may not take place.)

If I *were * accepted at that school, I *would attend * it.
(This is a hypothetical situation; I could say this without even having applied to that school.)

If I *had been * accepted at that school, I *would have attended* it.
(This is a hypothetical situation contrary to reality.  The fact is that I was not accepted; had I been, I would have gone.)


----------



## charmedboi82

elroy said:
			
		

> You are 100% right.
> 
> As for "if," the usage of indicative or subjunctive depends on whether you are referring to a hypothetical situation or a legitimate possibility.
> 
> If I *am * accepted at that school, I *will attend* it.
> (I still don't know if I will be accepted; it is a possibility that may or may not take place.)
> 
> If I *were * accepted at that school, I *would attend * it.
> (This is a hypothetical situation; I could say this without even having applied to that school.)
> 
> If I *had been * accepted at that school, I *would have attended* it.
> (This is a hypothetical situation contrary to reality. The fact is that I was not accepted; had I been, I would have gone.)



Thanks.  I want to 'refute' something that you just said, but it'll have to wait for an hour or two until I get back home.  I'll catch you then.  You explain things very well, .


----------



## RussUS

elroy said:
			
		

> What I'm saying is that in most cases - because the subjunctive is the same as the indicative - people *use the subjunctive without even knowing it. *They are using the same form as the indicative and are therefore not aware that there is a difference. They are using the subjunctive only by virtue of the fact that it is identical to the indicative form and not because they know that the situation requires it. I hope it's clear now...
> 
> Your response was superb. I only missed your point, with which I agree that they do not know they are using the subjunctive. When I say "the real problem," I don't mean with your explanation, I mean that I suspect Bahamut knows very little about the subjunctive, consequently your explanation didn't take. My intent was actually to comment on how good your answer was.
> 
> I don't know if I'm missing something, but these two sentences seem to mean two different things to me.
> 
> The first one sounds as if it is said *after *the fact that the player did not catch the pass.
> The second one sounds as if we are still waiting to see whether he will catch the pass.
> 
> Neither one sounds incorrect, though.
> 
> I didn't make this clear. It's a pet peeve so I stuck it in here where it probably doesn't fit. The circumstance is the sportscaster is commenting on a replay in which the *player did not make the catch.* He should use the condition contrary to fact construcion--subjunctive and would. (sentence 1) Today's sportscasters have invented the second sentence as I showed to invent a new way to say condition contrary to fact. (sentence 2)


 
It is very gratifying to me, an old guy, that there are so many, such as you, younger people who still know and know how to use proper English grammer.


----------



## elroy

charmedboi82 said:
			
		

> Thanks.  I want to 'refute' something that you just said, but it'll have to wait for an hour or two until I get back home.  I'll catch you then.  You explain things very well, .



All righty then.  I'll be waiting.


----------



## elroy

RussUS said:
			
		

> It is very gratifying to me, an old guy, that there are so many, such as you, younger people who still know and know how to use proper English grammer.



Thanks, Russ!   

I didn't know that about the sports commentators.  I'd get really confused if I *were * watching that game!


----------



## charmedboi82

Haha, wait no longer. I wrote 'refute' because it seemed like a strong word, but it was the first one that came to mind. Nothing that you wrote was wrong; however, I feel as though you left out another possibility.

My issue is with this:
*If I were accepted at that school, I would attend it.*

I personally prefer 'were to be', but hey, that's another matter. My real issue is that you didn't show any example of how the past indicative can be used after 'if'. There are not just contrary-to-fact sentences that can be formed but also sentences that assume something to be true. Granted, it's quite difficult to say 'if' about something in your own life since you should know if you were granted acceptance.

*1)  If she's at the party, she'll be annoying people.
2)  If she was at the party, she was annoying people.
3)  If she were at the party, she'd be annoying people.
4)  If she had been at the party, she'd have been annoying people.
*
#1 is pretty obvious.
The main clause in #2 goes with the belief that she was at the party even though I don't know for sure. Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't, but the speaker is assuming that she was at the party.
The main clause in #3 goes with the belief that she was not at the party but rather tells what would have happened had she been there (if she had been there). This takes places during the present or very shortly after the party.
#4 is the same as #3 expect that we're looking back on the event.

I think that a lot of speakers mix number 3 and 4 because the use of 'were' makes it seem as though #3 is set in the past when really it's just contrary-to-fact. They could say something like this: "If she were at the party, she'd have been annoying people." These two really can't be mixed because of the fact that one refers to an unreal present and the other to a hypothetical past. That's why it's best to construct sentences with 'she had + past participle' since it quickly takes the confusion out of when the event is occurring.

I expect that it's fairly similar in Spanish since I've seen sentences like "Si era..." while reading before even though I don't have a specific example to pull up at the moment.

BTW, my English tells me that it's accepted to/by that school. I find it interesting though that you use 'at'. Cool differences, .

I think I covered it all.  I hope I didn't make any mistakes.  Ciao.


----------



## elroy

charmedboi82 said:
			
		

> Haha, wait no longer. I wrote 'refute' because it seemed like a strong word, but it was the first one that came to mind. Nothing that you wrote was wrong; however, I feel as though you left out another possibility.
> 
> My issue is with this:
> *If I were accepted at that school, I would attend it.*
> 
> I personally prefer 'were to be', but hey, that's another matter. My real issue is that you didn't show any example of how the past indicative can be used after 'if'. There are not just contrary-to-fact sentences that can be formed but also sentences that assume something to be true. Granted, it's quite difficult to say 'if' about something in your own life since you should know if you were granted acceptance.
> 
> *1)  If she's at the party, she'll be annoying people.
> 2)  If she was at the party, she was annoying people.
> 3)  If she were at the party, she'd be annoying people.
> 4)  If she had been at the party, she'd have been annoying people.
> *
> #1 is pretty obvious.
> The main clause in #2 goes with the belief that she was at the party even though I don't know for sure. Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't, but the speaker is assuming that she was at the party.
> The main clause in #3 goes with the belief that she was not at the party but rather tells what would have happened had she been there (if she had been there). This takes places during the present or very shortly after the party.
> #4 is the same as #3 expect that we're looking back on the event.
> 
> I think that a lot of speakers mix number 3 and 4 because the use of 'were' makes it seem as though #3 is set in the past when really it's just contrary-to-fact. They could say something like this: "If she were at the party, she'd have been annoying people." These two really can't be mixed because of the fact that one refers to an unreal present and the other to a hypothetical past. That's why it's best to construct sentences with 'she had + past participle' since it quickly takes the confusion out of when the event is occurring.
> 
> I expect that it's fairly similar in Spanish since I've seen sentences like "Si era..." while reading before even though I don't have a specific example to pull up at the moment.
> 
> BTW, my English tells me that it's accepted to/by that school. I find it interesting though that you use 'at'. Cool differences, .
> 
> I think I covered it all.  I hope I didn't make any mistakes.  Ciao.



Phew!  Good to knew you weren't really going to refute what I said!   

I totally agree with what you said about the use of the past indicative after "if."  

And as for being accepted "to/by/at" a school, I wasn't really thinking that much when I was making up the sample sentence.  Now that I think about it, I would probably say "to" as well (not really "by"    ) but if I heard "at" I wouldn't consider it incorrect - just a different way to put it...

Hey, perhaps you could start a thread about it.


----------



## charmedboi82

elroy said:
			
		

> And as for being accepted "to/by/at" a school, I wasn't really thinking that much when I was making up the sample sentence. Now that I think about it, I would probably say "to" as well (not really "by"  ) but if I heard "at" I wouldn't consider it incorrect - just a different way to put it...
> 
> Hey, perhaps you could start a thread about it.



I guess I would except that they all three sound okay to me.


----------



## elroy

charmedboi82 said:
			
		

> I guess I would except that they all three sound okay to me.



None of them sounds horrendous, as would "in" or "on" or something!   

This is yet another indication of what a nightmare prepositions can be in English!


----------



## charmedboi82

elroy said:
			
		

> None of them sounds horrendous, as would "in" or "on" or something!
> 
> This is yet another indication of what a nightmare prepositions can be in English!



Yes, I was once told by a college professor that they're the hardest thing to master in a language.


----------



## RussUS

I wanted to post to this, and didn't because I thought you had kinda indicated you only wanted Elroy's thoughts, but then realized how ridiculous that would be, so here are my thoughts. Ironically, as you will see, they touch on the preposition as well as present subjuntive, i.e. sentence #3.




			
				charmedboi82 said:
			
		

> *3) If she were at the party, she'd be annoying people.*
> 
> The main clause in #3 goes with the belief that she was not at the party but rather tells what would have happened had she been there (if she had been there). This takes places during the present or very shortly after the party.
> 
> #4 is the same as #3 expect that we're looking back on the event.
> 
> I think that a lot of speakers mix number 3 and 4 because the use of 'were' makes it seem as though #3 is set in the past when really it's just contrary-to-fact. They could say something like this: "If she were at the party, she'd have been annoying people." These two really can't be mixed because of the fact that one refers to an unreal present and the other to a hypothetical past. That's why it's best to construct sentences with 'she had + past participle' since it quickly takes the confusion out of when the event is occurring.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> Sentence number 3 didn't "set" with me and I wasn't sure why. I have figured out why, even though my reason may be invalid. Here it is for you to see what you think.
> 
> I agree that it seems set in the past because of were, but is actually an unreal present.
> 
> My problem is the speaker's perspective.
> 
> The term "at the party," to me connotes that the speaker, "I" am *not* *at the party*, rather telling about, but needing to be telling about it *in the present* to match your example.
> 
> When I first "tried out" your sentence, I realized if I said "If she were here, she'd be annoying people," I was okay with the construction-- I am where she is and have current knowledge about her presence or absence, and whether anybody is being annoyed.
> 
> I continued playing and found I was happy with it if I was on the phone with somebody who was at the party, hence have been given current information about the party, the sentence works for me. That person has told me nobody is annoying anybody and has also told me she is not there. She is maybe, say, my ex-wife, so I make the negative remark, grammatically correct, and fitting the circumstance.
> 
> So what do you think? I love this site and the opportunity it gives to have these exercises in our wonderfully powerful grammar and how it translates into other languages. I concur with your professor about the difficulty of prepositions. Another of "my languages" is German which is even worse re prepositions because of their "separable prefixes" which may or may not have English parallels and cognates.
> 
> I should say, since I am new that I am not overly sensitive, and if you think me totally wrong and having made no sense, I am comfortable hearing it.


----------



## charmedboi82

RussUS said:
			
		

> Sentence number 3 didn't "set" with me and I wasn't sure why. I have figured out why, even though my reason may be invalid. Here it is for you to see what you think.
> 
> I agree that it seems set in the past because of were, but is actually an unreal present.
> 
> My problem is the speaker's perspective.
> 
> The term "at the party," to me connotes that the speaker, "I" am *not* *at the party*, rather telling about, but needing to be telling about it *in the present* to match your example.
> 
> When I first "tried out" your sentence, I realized if I said "If she were here, she'd be annoying people," I was okay with the construction-- I am where she is and have current knowledge about her presence or absence, and whether anybody is being annoyed.
> 
> I continued playing and found I was happy with it if I was on the phone with somebody who was at the party, hence have been given current information about the party, the sentence works for me. That person has told me nobody is annoying anybody and has also told me she is not there. She is maybe, say, my ex-wife, so I make the negative remark, grammatically correct, and fitting the circumstance.



I agree, the sentence speaks of an unreal present (which, strangely enough, is the purpose of the PAST subjunctive, hehe).  I didn't do a very good job in the explanation of the sentences, but that's exactly what I meant it to mean (an unreal present).

In contrast to you, I assumed that I was at the party and was just imagining what 'she' would be doing were she at the party.  You're also correct that you could be having at the conversation on the phone with someone at the party though.  I think both scenarios are plausible.

Yes, this forum and this kind of forum are truly great things.  Grammar books are good to a point, but there's so much more to cover and so many interpretations that talking/writing about such things really adds to enrich the experience of the learner, no?  Thanks for commenting and welcome.


----------

