ThePortForum.com

I’m genuinely conflicted.

It is not that each of the dozen bottles was sold at £62 (so it wasn’t £744 for the lot), it was the dozen that was sold at £62. That points to “another dozen was sold at £62.”

But let’s vary it. Obviously, if it were 11 bottles, then “another eleven bottles were sold at £57.” Perhaps the dozen should be consistent with that? I think this agrees with Flash.

Indeed, I think my being conflicted agrees with Phil.

Style guides and books of usage are generally clear on this point. A dozen (eggs, or bottles) is a singular unit; the collective noun takes the verb, not the individual items. If a dozen people are meeting you for a port tasting, they are plural; I think this is to with the non-identical nature of the items being considered (yes, sure, please do go ahead and argue that point).

flash_uk wrote:I don't think it does come down to whether dozen is treated as a singular or plural unit.

You are correct, but not for the reason you think.

You are correct because the unit in question is not "dozen" but "another" which is singular.

jdaw1 wrote:But let’s vary it. Obviously, if it were 11 bottles, then “another eleven bottles were sold at £57.”

"Another" implies "set of" in the sentence - "another (set of) eleven bottles was sold at £57."

Leaving "another" out yields "eleven bottles were sold at £57," which to me implies that they could have been sold individually, but were instead sold together (but not as a deliberate unit).

I think it comes down to the implied meaning that comes from the form of the verb.

"1 dozen bottles was sold" implies a single lot of 12 bottles. "1 dozen bottles were sold" implies a number of lots of bottles which together added to 12 bottles.

Given that we have been told this was a single lot of 12 bottles I vote for "1 dozen bottles was sold" - it is the dozen that was sold, not the 12 individual bottles. The dozen was indivisible and therefore is a singular item.

jdaw1 wrote:• On 7 November 1974 another dozen were sold at £62.
• On 7 November 1974 another dozen was sold at £62.

AHB wrote:Given that we have been told this was a single lot of 12 bottles I vote for "1 dozen bottles was sold" - it is the dozen that was sold, not the 12 individual bottles. The dozen was indivisible and therefore is a singular item.

Would the same one-lot reasoning apply if “dozen” were replaced with “eleven”, or with “11”?

jdaw1 wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:• On 7 November 1974 another dozen were sold at £62.
• On 7 November 1974 another dozen was sold at £62.

AHB wrote:Given that we have been told this was a single lot of 12 bottles I vote for "1 dozen bottles was sold" - it is the dozen that was sold, not the 12 individual bottles. The dozen was indivisible and therefore is a singular item.

Would the same one-lot reasoning apply if “dozen” were replaced with “eleven”, or with “11”?

If you spoke of "11 bottles" then the answer is no, that would be "Another 11 bottles were sold".

If you spoke of it as a lot of 11 bottles then you would be referring to a singular unit, hence "Another lot of 11 bottles was sold"

AHB wrote:"Another 11 bottles were sold".

I still think you're focusing on the wrong word. Replacing "dozen" with "11 bottles" doesn't matter. (Or rather, doing so makes the use of "another" improper.)

"Another"... "an other"... means "one more".

"One more [dozen | 11 bottles] were sold" makes no sense. It is grammatically incorrect for "another" to be plural. If you want to use 11 bottles, then you change the sentence to "11 more bottles were sold."

Ergo, another dozen was sold at £62.

I still don't think it matters if the dozen were the same bottles or different bottles. They were bottles, plural, and so the bottles "were" sold, or the dozen bottles "were" sold, or the dozen "were" sold. If it was one lot of a dozen bottles, then I'd say it was one lot of a dozen bottles "were" sold. If I didn't specify what was in the lot, then it would be just one lot was sold, as in "there were two lots of a dozen F63 for sale, one lot was sold for £10, the other lot was sold for £11."

Can I test a similar phrase. What about a pair of shoes? I think it is a pair of shoes were sold.

flash_uk wrote:Can I test a similar phrase. What about a pair of shoes? I think it is a pair of shoes were sold.

What is the subject of the sentence? A pair, not shoes.

A pair of shoes was sold.

"Of shoes" is a descriptive clause; the verb must agree with the subject.

Back to the original question, "another" requires a singular object.

Another object was sold.
Another objects were sold.

Object is the subject, and it must agree with the verb. However, for the use of "another" in the sentence to be correct the subject must be singular.

"Another dozen were sold" requires that "another" and "dozen" agree, and also that "dozen" and "were" agree. But for that to be true, "dozen" must be both singular and plural in its usage in the sentence which cannot be true. So take your pick; either "another" does not agree with "dozen" or "dozen" does not agree with "were," and in either case the sentence is grammatically incorrect.

Ergo, another dozen was sold at £62.

I need a drink

Glenn E. wrote: What is the subject of the sentence? A pair, not shoes.

A pair of shoes was sold.

"Of shoes" is a descriptive clause; the verb must agree with the subject

Am with you that the verb must agree with the subject, which in this case is a pair, but a pair can be considered a singular noun or a plural noun depending on what it is a pair of. A pair of knickers is singular. Earrings, shoes, socks can be singular or plural. So I believe both a pair of shoes was sold and a pair of shoes were sold are both correct. As such, given that a dozen refers to a number of discrete items, I would posit that both a dozen bottles were sold and a dozen bottles was sold could both be correct.

I'd have to see examples, because as far as I know a pair is always singular.

Glenn E. wrote:I'd have to see examples, because as far as I know a pair is always singular.

This website has a few examples.

flash_uk wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:I'd have to see examples, because as far as I know a pair is always singular.

This website has a few examples.

Interesting. I agree with the concept of notional agreement, but even the examples given appear wrong to me. A pair is a singular object. If you have two unrelated objects, you refer to them as "two objects" not "a pair of objects."

Their "shoes" example demonstrates it perfectly for me. Their attempted notional use of "a pair of shoes" looks and sounds wrong... because despite the concept being valid, it doesn't apply (to me) to a pair of shoes.

I thought the distinction about a pair was more about discrete items rather than a whole item. It is not possible to separate one knicker from a pair of knickers. It is possible to separate one sock from a pair of socks. Socks could also be a matching pair of socks or an odd pair of socks.

flash_uk wrote:I thought the distinction about a pair was more about discrete items rather than a whole item. It is not possible to separate one knicker from a pair of knickers. It is possible to separate one sock from a pair of socks.

I remember my wife calling for help saying; "I'm stuck, I've got two legs in one knicker".

LGTrotter wrote:

flash_uk wrote:I thought the distinction about a pair was more about discrete items rather than a whole item. It is not possible to separate one knicker from a pair of knickers. It is possible to separate one sock from a pair of socks.

I remember my wife calling for help saying; "I'm stuck, I've got two legs in one knicker".

[like]

Please can we end this debate here? Please?

It was not the direction in which the conversation had been originally pointed.

jdaw1 wrote:It was not the direction in which the conversation had been originally pointed.

To wit, despite the educational link, I still claim that the use of "another" requires a singular object. Regardless of whether or not dozen, or pair, or whatever, can be plural it must be singular in this usage.

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=99246#p99246]Here[/url] Doggett wrote:I have a Cockburn and a Fonseca G...one of which I need for my parents golden wedding anniversary and the other for the tasting. Either way round is ok.

Two errors!

This book review considers a book which takes aim at grammar pedantry, suggesting the "rules" cited are often without substance or authority. Thoughts anyone?

jdaw1 wrote:

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=99246#p99246]Here[/url] Doggett wrote:I have a Cockburn and a Fonseca G...one of which I need for my parents golden wedding anniversary and the other for the tasting. Either way round is ok.

Two errors!

Shame on me for rushing and missing their ownership of their anniversary... And further shame for depriving 'round' of an additional 'a'. I shall be in the stocks in Sanderstead village at lunchtime with a basket of rotten fruit, for those that wish to administer the appropriate punishment.

The most important error was the idea that bottles of Port could be for any purpose other than sharing with us.

I fail: www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/36205762.