Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
tromboniator said
All due respect to John, I disagree with his construction. The meaning is plural, but the construction is singular. A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do is singular in construction, but the intent is absolutely plural. Would you say Many a man have a decision to make ? I wouldn't.
Your A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do is not talking about many men, it's about an individual. Many a man have to do what they have to do.
Many a man have decisions to make. That's how it is with groups. Twelves committee me3mbers, thirteen or fourteen opinions.
I would read 'A man's gotta do ...' as having no intention other than concerning a characteristic: Given some thing, if the thing is man, then what said of it is true. The appearance of singularity is purely one of syntax. In that vein these 3 statements are equivalent one to another: man does what man does, men do what men do, a man does what a man does.
Robert said
I would read 'A man's gotta do ...' as having no intention other than concerning a characteristic: Given some thing, if the thing is man, then what said of it is true. The appearance of singularity is purely one of syntax. In that vein these 3 statements are equivalent one to another: man does what man does, men do what men do, a man does what a man does.
Which gets a fair distance from whether many of the noun and men the adjective or vice versa.
Many a something, in today's informal vernacular is lots of something.
He had bagged many a white-tail with his favorite deer rifle. He had bagged lots of white-tail with his favorite deer rifle. By making it the object rather than the subject, it's easier to see that the noun is many or lots. Many have been harvested. Lots have been stuffed by taxidermists.
The fact that the of in many of a man is unsaid doesn't mean it doesn't cast its ghostly effect.
Many a style guide says that the verb following many a is singular in form. Here's Nat Geo as one example:
Many a/an takes a verb in singular form (I will hasten to point out that this style guide and others refer to the construction as an indefinite pronoun, rather than as an adjective.)
Clearly the intent is plural, while the referent noun and verb are singular. The same sentence beginning with A is clearly singular.
A style guide says that the verb following many a is singular in form. (Only one)
Many a style guide says that the verb following many a is singular in form. (More than one)
Nice puzzle.
Style guide above is wrong to call 'many a' a pronoun. Notice how the 2 items 'many a' and 'every' are different from all the rest in their own list of pronouns:
Anyone, each, either, every, everyone, many a, no one, nothing, someone, something
A pronoun must suit as subject or object to a verb. 'Many a' and 'every' do not meet that condition, cannot be pronoun.
You're treating "many a" as one unit, and it's not. Many stands alone, as subject or object, while a is an adjective describing whatever follows it.. The "a" carries with it an implied "of". Half a pear is really half of a pear, so when you diagram Half a pear is sufficient, it's half that is the subject of the sentence, and when you diagram Many a pear are wormy, it's many that is the subject. The a pear, or a man, or whatever, stands in apposition to many, part, all, etc.
Your pear example has the verb conjugated wrong- should be singular.
There is no 'of' implied in 'Many a' because if there were, the verb would have been plural. You can have either 'many a' or 'many of' , but they are not the same.
Anyway, style guide above misuses the word 'pronoun.'
Probably the most linguistically consistent view is to see many a/an as a determiner as in this linguistic article on determiners from U Penn
Determiners and Noun Phrases.
While many as an isolated word can be considered an adjective or a pronoun, many a/an functions as a determiner. Compare these uses of many to the somewhat analogous uses of isolated few as a pronoun or adjective vs. the determiner use a few.
It is pretty universally documented that many a/an is followed by a noun in singular form and when applicable a verb, etc., also in singular form.
Many a soldier has lost his life in defense of his nation.
Many soldiers have lost their lives in defense of their nation.
I still like the puzzle, even though the statement of the puzzle may have been somewhat misleading in saying that you add an adjective. It is more accurate to say you are replacing the determiner (replacing the determiner a with the determiner many a). Who isn't prepared for a little trickery when posed such a puzzle?
deaconB said
We could go around and around, but I won't agree that many is singular, so we had best agree that one of us is surely wrong, not specifying who it is, and let it go at that.
Where was it said that 'many' is singular? Nowhere. But the verb must be singular because it is conjugated to the singular noun.
Glenn said
I still like the puzzle, even though the statement of the puzzle may have been somewhat misleading in saying that you add an adjective. It is more accurate to say you are replacing the determiner (replacing the determiner a with the determiner many a). Who isn't prepared for a little trickery when posed such a puzzle?
'Many' in 'Many a' is actually adjective. Look in where the dictionaries give examples of 'Many a noun...' : They first define 'Many' as adjective , then the examples follow without missing a beat. No mention of any pronoun or determiner or anything else.
In any case, determiners? Too complicated for any puzzle; no one would ever know what it is. Still don't.
Well well now, 'gloss over' is not very good for any kind of explaination. Did the dictionaries also gloss over that 'many' is a verb, a preposition, a conjunction, anything? A potential paramour turns you down flat , but that's only because they gloss over your prodigious hidden charisma.
No dictionary captures all aspects of the language even when limiting consideration only to the words they choose to include. They must make choices for inclusion and omission. They group and simplify. They also sometimes fall behind the most current scholarship. I hope this is not a surprise.
Several online dictionaries include the determiner as one of the roles played by the word many. Some omit it.
Macmillan includes both determiner and predeterminer. It classifies this use in question as the predeterminer use:
Many can be used in the following ways:
as a determiner (followed by a plural noun): It happened many years ago. ? How many children do you have?
as a pronoun: "Did he write any other books?" "Not many." (followed by "of"): Many of you will be going on to college.
as a predeterminer (followed by the indefinite article "a" and a singular noun): We've played many a round of golf together.
as an adjective (after a word such as "the," "his," or "these," and followed by a noun): He said goodbye to his many friends.
as a noun in the phrase the many: The few who behave badly spoil the enjoyment of the many.
Oxford lists it as determiner, whereas American Heritage and Websters decline to list the determiner use at all and, as you say, classify this use as adjective.
Oxford on many
American Heritage on many
Websters on many
As far as I can tell, the same dictionaries follow these same classification distinctives for few as in a few + noun.
English adjectives can come before the a in some rhetorical devices for emphasis (As unusual a situation as that might be.) or in English as spoken by Yoda. (Unusual a situation is that, young Jedi!). It is possible that many a/an falls in the category of a noun phrase with a rhetorical emphasis on the adjective, so it's not totally absurd to consider the use as adjectival. But if so, it is the only adjective (I can think of) that enjoys this particular construction without as or so or any other emphatic lead-in. (*Tall a man it takes to touch the ceiling.)
As a result, I agree with the lexicographers who feel it is a better description to classify the use as a determiner (or part of a determiner phrase) along with a few.
Glenn said
No dictionary captures all aspects of the language even when limiting consideration only to the words they choose to include. They must make choices for inclusion and omission. They group and simplify.
-----------------------
Hate to belabor the same point, but if a dictionary says a canine is a dog, is that because they choose to omit that a canine is also a dolphin and an elephant and a lizard ? Yes, that's entirely possible. But why would you ever want to choose to believe that?
If a dictionary says 'Many' is an adjective, then follows right after with an example of 'Many a noun,' the most direct and most plausible understanding of that is what? What else but that they choose to tell you that 'Many' in that usage is an adjective. To say otherwise is putting words in their mouth, pure speculations.
Believe that canine is dolphin and elephant and lizard? Sorry, just kidding.
Let's look at your own citations: (And please note- though this is repeating again what I already said- that the examples follow smack after the definition of adjective, no other kind of definition in between)
American Heritage:
man·y (m?n??)
adj. more (môr), most (m?st)
1. Amounting to or consisting of a large indefinite number: many friends.
2. Being one of a large indefinite number; numerous: many a child; many another day.
Merriam-Webster:
1many adjective \?me-n?\
more most
Definition of MANY
1
: consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number <worked for many years>
2
: being one of a large but indefinite number <many a man> <many another student
-------------------------
You said that they decline to list other than adjective. Why decline? Who says decline? You should, instead of putting words in their mouth, be convinced that they choose to tell you that 'Many' is adjective.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
2 Guest(s)