Use of proper grammar and standard English.

[oggbashan]

Institutes were very popular throughout the UK from the 1880s. They were often attached to working men's clubs with libraries, art galleries etc and were intended to improve the cultural life of the working class men.

Years ago I wanted to take a degree course from the Open University (OU). I went to my nearest institute, St Brides, just off Fleet Street in the City of London.

They were very well funded by the City, unlike public libraries. They offered to supply me with ALL the set books required by the OU, on a five-year loan at no cost to me.

I didn't start the OU course because my employer considered me to be a post-graduate already by an Internal examination. But knowing that St Brides would support me if I wanted was a relief.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

‘Nother question, if I may. I’ve gone at this from several different directions and cannot make up my mind.

A group of three people are sitting at a table, drinks in front of them. So… All three of them stretched out [an arm / their arms / her arm] for [their drink / their drinks / her drink], took a sip.

Singular, plural, both [or neither )? I can come up with an argument for almost any of them and would appreciate some advice before I take a stick to Teddy in my frustration.

 

[Voboy]

‘Nother question, if I may. I’ve gone at this from several different directions and cannot make up my mind.

A group of three people are sitting at a table, drinks in front of them. So… All three of them stretched out [an arm / their arms / her arm] for [their drink / their drinks / her drink], took a sip.

Singular, plural, both [or neither )? I can come up with an argument for almost any of them and would appreciate some advice before I take a stick to Teddy in my frustration.

No. A group of three people IS sitting at a table.

That verb is connected to "a group," not "three people."

If you take out "a group of," your verb is no longer agreeing with a singular. "All three of them stretched out their arms for their drinks" is the way I'd put it.

But honestly, I'd come up with a sleeker way to do it. That sounds clunky. The reader doesn't really need to know that their arms are stretching. "The barmaid brought their drinks. A long, slurpy pause followed. 'Ah,' one of them said, smacking his lips, 'that's the stuff.' The others nodded, smiling."

 

[alohadave]

‘Nother question, if I may. I’ve gone at this from several different directions and cannot make up my mind.

A group of three people are sitting at a table, drinks in front of them. So… All three of them stretched out [an arm / their arms / her arm] for [their drink / their drinks / her drink], took a sip.

Singular, plural, both [or neither )? I can come up with an argument for almost any of them and would appreciate some advice before I take a stick to Teddy in my frustration.

"They all took a drink."

Why do we need to know that they stretched out their arms to reach the glass?

 

[Euphony]

But honestly, I'd come up with a sleeker way to do it. That sounds clunky.

Had exactly the same word come to mind. Clunky.

Why is the numeric specificity needed in this particular sentence? (which ups the clunk quotient) If the specific number of girls must be addressed, can it be better stated (or better yet, implied) elsewhere?

"The group reached for their drinks." (all can go in there but I like the word efficiency best here)

Is there some narrative reason why the original sentence needed to be so busy? Is it telling something here bigger than just girls getting their drink on?

 

[Euphony]

Why do we need to know that they stretched out their arms to reach the glass?

I tried to devil's advocate this like maybe the girls arms needed to be shown extended to be cuffed or something but everything I came up with was so outlandish as to be better done sprinkled more sparingly throughout a large chunk of narrative.

Why must there arms ALL be out?
Why do we need to know they are drinking from glass?

If girls are getting handcuffed soon or glasses smashed over the head of "that b*tch who stole my man," then we need those specific details.

Otherwise, streamline.

 

[XerXesXu]

‘Nother question, if I may. I’ve gone at this from several different directions and cannot make up my mind.

A group of three people are sitting at a table, drinks in front of them. So… All three of them stretched out [an arm / their arms / her arm] for [their drink / their drinks / her drink], took a sip.

Singular, plural, both [or neither )? I can come up with an argument for almost any of them and would appreciate some advice before I take a stick to Teddy in my frustration.

'an arm', if drinking out of glasses, 'their arms', if drinking out of buckets and they're retrieving only one drink. 'their arms' for 'their drinks', if they've got two rounds in and there are six or so drinks on the table.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

My original intent was to include a degree of simultaneity, all three acting independently but doing precisely the same thing in response to a stimulus I didn’t include here. I take your points however and thanks. Voboy - good catch. Thanks for that, too.

 

[Euphony]

My original intent was to include a degree of simultaneity, all three acting independently but doing precisely the same thing in response to a stimulus I didn’t include here. I take your points however and thanks. Voboy - good catch. Thanks for that, too.

It's good you are thinking in totality like that. Helpers here usually consider the common or path of least resistance but sometimes there is reason to do something out of the usual norm.

 

[SimonDoom]

‘Nother question, if I may. I’ve gone at this from several different directions and cannot make up my mind.

A group of three people are sitting at a table, drinks in front of them. So… All three of them stretched out [an arm / their arms / her arm] for [their drink / their drinks / her drink], took a sip.

Singular, plural, both [or neither )? I can come up with an argument for almost any of them and would appreciate some advice before I take a stick to Teddy in my frustration.

Be simple, clear, and consistent.

All three stretched out their arms for their drinks.

Plural, all around. There is no ambiguity.

Consider, in contrast:

All three stretched out an arm for a drink.

So, what, they share a collective arm, which is going for one drink? No.

It would be correct and clear to say "Each stretched out an arm for a drink." But "All three stretched out an arm for a drink" is unnecessarily ambiguous.

 

[Voboy]

Three hands reached for three glasses.
Three pair of eyes met, incendescent.
Three pussies overflowed with instant arousal.
Three waiters, massive cocks tenting their tight pants, magically appeared.

...that should get you started.

 

[ElectricBlue]

‘Nother question, if I may. I’ve gone at this from several different directions and cannot make up my mind.

A group of three people are sitting at a table, drinks in front of them. So… All three of them stretched out [an arm / their arms / her arm] for [their drink / their drinks / her drink], took a sip.

Singular, plural, both [or neither )? I can come up with an argument for almost any of them and would appreciate some advice before I take a stick to Teddy in my frustration.

All three reached for their drink and took a sip.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Thank you, one (singular) and all (plural).

 

[Bramblethorn]

All three reached for their drink and took a sip.

"All three" is plural, but "their drink" and "a sip" are singular. Unless they're taking one collective sip from one shared drink, that doesn't look right to me.

I'd amend to either:
"Each of the three reached for their drink and took a sip". Here, "each" works as a kind of iterated singular, like a more compact way of saying "Bob reached for his drink, Jane reached for her drink" etc.

or:
"All three reached for their drinks and [took sips/sipped]."

 

[ElectricBlue]

"All three" is plural, but "their drink" and "a sip" are singular. Unless they're taking one collective sip from one shared drink, that doesn't look right to me.

I'd amend to either:
"Each of the three reached for their drink and took a sip". Here, "each" works as a kind of iterated singular, like a more compact way of saying "Bob reached for his drink, Jane reached for her drink" etc.

or:
"All three reached for their drinks and [took sips/sipped]."

Maybe... each reached for their drink, and each took a sip, thus introducing a comma. Collectively, they decided it would be easier to just get pissed, thus being of no help to TP at all.

I think TP is on her own on this one, since a gaggle of help hasn't helped her!

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I think TP is on her own on this one, since a gaggle of help hasn't helped her!

I am somewhat comforted as there wasn’t a universal, clear agreement. Maybe I’ll just have three straws in one drink. Thanks again, folks.

 

[XerXesXu]

Be simple, clear, and consistent.

All three stretched out their arms for their drinks.

Plural, all around. There is no ambiguity.

Oh yes, there is. It reads as if they're drinking from buckets.

 

[SimonDoom]

All three reached for their drink and took a sip.

It's not "drink," it's "drinks." They do not share a drink. Each has a separate drink. It should be "All three reached for their drinks."

Let's think about this in other contexts, and we can see why this is correct.

"Three farmers brought their sheepdogs to the contest."

If you said

"Three farmers brought their sheepdog to the contest."

Isn't that obviously wrong? It implies that three farmers jointly own a single sheepdog and they brought that one sheepdog to the contest.

The correct way to write this is EITHER:

"All three reached for their drinks and took their sips."

OR

"Each of the three reached for his drink [or "their drink" if you prefer the gender neutrality] and took his [or "their"] sip."

There is no sound reason to mix up plural and singular.

 

[ElectricBlue]

There is no sound reason to mix up plural and singular.

Grammatically, maybe so, but your first solution suggests they each have multiple drinks. But then, it is TP's bar, and she might not be the most responsible landlady, as evidenced by the complete drunken mayhem in her establishment.

I think we need the police, not the grammar police. Anyway, it's up to TP to sort out - they're her sottish characters in the first place .

 

[XerXesXu]

There is no sound reason to mix up plural and singular.

Except that British English differs from American English in that respect. What seems obviously wrong to a prescriptive American ear does not seem so to permissive British English speakers.

ChatGPT's quite good on this sort of thing:

A group of three people are sitting at a table, drinks in front of them. So… All three of them stretched out [an arm / their arms / her arm] for [their drink / their drinks / her drink], Singular or plural for arms, or both? I can come up with an argument for almost any of them and would appreciate some advice on which is correct.


'If the three people are stretching out their arms simultaneously, then the correct phrase would be "All three of them stretched out their arms for their drinks."
If they are stretching out one arm each, then the correct phrase would be "All three of them stretched out an arm for their drink."'

And, more generally:

'In American English, collective nouns are typically treated as singular nouns, so verbs and pronouns are often singular to match. For example: "The team is practicing today."
In British English, collective nouns can be treated as either singular or plural, depending on the context. If the group is acting as a single unit, the noun is treated as singular. If the group is acting as individuals, the noun is treated as plural. For example: "The team are having a meeting today."
It's worth noting that there is some variation within both American and British English, and what is considered standard usage may depend on the region, the style guide being followed, and the speaker's personal preferences.


Regenerate response

 

[Athalia]

'In American English, collective nouns are typically treated as singular nouns, so verbs and pronouns are often singular to match. For example: "The team is practicing today."
In British English, collective nouns can be treated as either singular or plural, depending on the context. If the group is acting as a single unit, the noun is treated as singular. If the group is acting as individuals, the noun is treated as plural. For example: "The team are having a meeting today."
It's worth noting that there is some variation within both American and British English, and what is considered standard usage may depend on the region, the style guide being followed, and the speaker's personal preferences.

That's something that shocked me when I moved to England for a short while. I could never figure out what was appropriate, and ended up asking people for their opinions.

 

[Djmac1031]

I've always tried to write dialog the way people actually speak. Although there is a danger in overdoing it, because you can make your characters sound unintelligent, or worse, annoying.

Sometimes the way people SPEAK doesn't translate well to the written word.

That said, nothing wrong with writing more casual dialog.

I've intentionally threw in some run on sentences in dialog, especially if a character is emotional or upset.

I also throw in verbal tics, like "well," "you know," or the occasional "um."

Those I try not to over do, as they can break the flow of reading.