'Nother grammar question

[TarnishedPenny]

Okay, as the OP, I took the free will thing as a reasonably witty interjection, of the sort for which AH is renowned. In any case, thanks to all for their care and time.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

The eleven "had"s:

Ms Grammanazzi, the kindergarten teacher, marks two kids' work:

John ended his story, "I had a good time". But Jane wrote "I had had a good time."

Ms Grammanazzi prefferred Jane's ending,

Jane, where John had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had more marks from the teacher.

And he uses a derivative of 'nice guy' as his user name. While grammatically correct, this is pure evil.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Okaay - thanks for that and permit me to ask for a bit more guidance concerning a minor barony's relations with a bordering kingdom. I had originally described as this:

Sometimes it had been a formal alliance, sometimes just a shared confidence, but the hands of friendship had always been extended.

My logic is that 'hand' would be pluralized as this had happened over and over, therefore there would be more than one hand over time. Looking at it now, I'm uncertain; there would have been only one baron's hand extended at any given time.

So, is it 'hand' or 'hands'?

Ta.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

"Hand of Friendship' is an idiom, used metaphorically to represent an act. In your example, it does not represent repeated gestures, but a single ongoing one.
Thus, singular, not plural.

 

[SimonDoom]

Okaay - thanks for that and permit me to ask for a bit more guidance concerning a minor barony's relations with a bordering kingdom. I had originally described as this:

My logic is that 'hand' would be pluralized as this had happened over and over, therefore there would be more than one hand over time. Looking at it now, I'm uncertain; there would have been only one baron's hand extended at any given time.

So, is it 'hand' or 'hands'?

Ta.

Hand, not hands. By using "hands" you confuse whether it's one hand being extended multiple times or multiple hands being extended. I have an image in my mind of a bunch of hands being extended away from somebody's body and the image looks weird to me, like a Hindu goddess. When you use "hand" only, the meaning is crystal clear, particularly because you say "had always been extended."

But it might depend on whether you are referring principally to one party in this alliance, or to both. If to one party, then I'd definitely recommend "hand." If to both, then I might say something like "the hand of friendship had always been extended by each side."

 

[SimonDoom]

"Hand of Friendship' is an idiom, used metaphorically to represent an act. In your example, it does not represent repeated gestures, but a single ongoing one.
Thus, singular, not plural.

This is a better reason than mine. It's a standard idiom. Stick with that.

 

[TheLobster]

I'd also use "had remained extended" to make clear the continuous nature of the relation. Grammatical aspect is sadly something that English struggles with, so sometimes you just have to swap in a different verb.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Okaay - thanks for that and permit me to ask for a bit more guidance concerning a minor barony's relations with a bordering kingdom. I had originally described as this:

My logic is that 'hand' would be pluralized as this had happened over and over, therefore there would be more than one hand over time. Looking at it now, I'm uncertain; there would have been only one baron's hand extended at any given time.

So, is it 'hand' or 'hands'?

Ta.

I think that either way is okay but hand singular is more clear. Unless the help came from multiple sources (one kingdom one year, another kingdom the next, etc). If it was the same hand each time, then hand singular would be more clear.

 

[Comshaw]

This is what tickles my fancy: a half dozen different ways to say it; everyone of them correct. Yet each are distinct and give the reader a different vibe, a different experience, a different voice.


Comshaw

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Thanks, one and all.