Our second software guy Heitor, together with ...., Quentin, seem to have
I have a question here:
First I wrote this:
Our second software guy Heitor, together with software guy number one, Quentin, , seems to have solved the problem
But then I changed the seems to seem, but for some reason it looks wrong to use the plural here. hmmmm, what do you suggest'
19 Answers
Absolutely. It never ceases to amaze me how many of you can state the same case more precisely and succinctly than I. ... Another case in point.
It also never ceases to amaze me how this type of error becomes more and more ubiquitous as the "short-term memory" (or short-term attention span) problem worsens with each generation. Many times things like this even end up in print by sources one would expect to hold the line on correctness. I notice increasingly how many people cannot form a complex sentence in their speaking (or writing), and when they attempt to do so, we are left with a run-on sentence with dangling modifiers, etc., and they can't remember how they began their sentence to continue it in the same form or with proper agreement. (Whoa, I almost did that there myself!)
To be clear, the foregoing is by no means a criticism of the question in point, or of anyone who posts questions of a similar nature. If one does not know, is not sure, or is trying to learn, they should not be ridiculed for asking.
Well, obviously, I am unlikely to disagree with your agreement with my previous statement/analysis. The issue of verb agreement with collective nouns is somewhat different but, nonetheless, related. The fundamental problem is deciding what is the subject (of the sentence/verb). Collective nouns (to some extent) create separate problems) but for many/most English speakers the introduction of some sort of modifying/qualifying clause/phrase can also be disruptive. Most of the "mistakes" that I encounter, involve situations in which the real subject is separated from the verb by some sort of parenthetical expression, especially those with a different number). There seems to be a strong tendency to make the agreement with the nearest noun rather than the most relevant noun. In psychological terms, this is, essentially, a problem of "short-term memory".
Bien dicho y explicado Lazarus, Juan60, y samdie.
Mi post en cuanto a "The Rolling Stones were in Mexico last year" relaciona con esta pregunta. Quizá le amplie el entendimiento. ...
The Rolling Stones were in Mexico last year.
The band, The Rolling Stones, was in Mexico last year.
The Rolling Stones, the band, were in Mexico last year.
En los últimos dos ejemplos, el texto entre las comas se llama 'an appositive,? una aposición (como así). Yuxtapuesta con su objeto, lo define, y así, se ignora en cuanto a conjugación o acuerdo entre el sujeto y el verbo.
Aunque quizá no haya una regla fija en cuanto a esto, por lo general (como ya comentaron Luna y qfreed) una entidad/unidad se trata como singular, mientras que una entidad cuyos miembros pueden percibirse poder actuar independientemente, se trata como plural.
Por ej., se dice:
*Some of The Rolling Stones were in Mexico last year.
Mick Jagger is a Rolling Stone.*
Pero no se puede decir:
*Some of Nirvana was/were in Mexico last year.
Kurt Cobain was a Nirvana.*
No, se tiene que convertir en:
*Some of the members of Nirvana were in Mexico last year.
Kurt Cobain was a member of Nirvana.*
Por lo tanto, el nombre de una entidad se trata gramáticamente conforme a la unidad de su título.
Esta construcción asemeja a la pregunta que hizo recientemente Heidita, en cuanto a 'Heitor, together with Quentin, seems to have solved the problem'. El texto entre las comas es parentético (') y adverbial ('), no parte del sujeto, y por tanto se ignora para conjugar el verbo. Lo explicaron bien y correctamente samdie, Juan60, y Lazarus.
Igual es la construcción de una unidad como sujeto que se acompaña por una frase preposicional:
Some horses were seen passing by.
Pero:
A herd of horses was seen passing by.
Este tipo de construcción confunde aun a los hablantes nativos del inglés, y se ve escrito y hablado incorrectamente a menudo.
Again, sorry for chiming in so late.
May I suggest a different look at the problem? If it is truly a "parenthetical adverb", as samdie suggested, we should be able to reposition it, getting something like this:
Our second software guy Heitor seems to have solved the problem, together with software guy number one, Quentin.
Clearly, the same sentence. Even in Spanish, we would use singular, not plural:
Nuestro segundo experto en software Heitor, junto al número uno Quentin, parece haber resuelto el problema.
The same sentence with "and" ("y" in Spanish) and without commas, would have been in plural, though.
Seems would be the correct usage because you broke up the sentance with the commas and are referring to two different indivuals individually. At first I thought it was seem, but after reading it a few times I am certain that it is seems.
I suggest that software guy #1 abdicate his title to software guy #2, (because software guy #1 has enough software problems of his own). That way there will only be one software guy and the discussion is moot.
Hmmmm, this is getting complicated, as I saw this morning a very nice and ever so tecnical post by Moe, who will be named software guy number three.
However, I do like this:
'Heitor, our backup software guy,
But then...Moe would be the backup of the backup software guy...hmmmmm, confusing...
Thanks for all the answers and I am happy to see that not even natives agree on this. Eddy, I think I will stick with seems, sounded more correct to me in the first place.
Still trying to find this bloody corner.
I suggest that software guy #1 abdicate his title to software guy #2, (because software guy #1 has enough software problems of his own). That way there will only be one software guy and the discussion is moot.
Hmmmm, this is getting complicated, as I saw this morning a very nice and ever so tecnical post by Moe, who will be named software guy number three. 
However, I do like this:
'Heitor, our backup software guy,
But then...Moe would be the backup of the backup software guy...hmmmmm, confusing... 
Thanks for all the answers and I am happy to see that not even natives agree on this. Eddy, I think I will stick with seems, sounded more correct to me in the first place. 
I have a question here:
First I wrote this:
Our second software guy Heitor, together with software guy number one, Quentin, , seems to have solved the problem
But then I changed the seems to seem, but for some reason it looks wrong to use the plural here. hmmmm, what do you suggest?
I suggest that software guy #1 abdicate his title to software guy #2, (because software guy #1 has enough software problems of his own). That way there will only be one software guy and the discussion is moot.
Heidita,
Your first sentence is correct, except for punctuation. It could be corrected as follows:
"Our second software guy, Heitor, together with software guy number one, Quentin, seems to have solved the problem."
In this sentence, the subject is singular: "Our second software guy." The correct verb is "seems." [He seems to have solved the problem.]
The prepositional phrase "together with software guy number one, Quentin," is not part of the subject. It is additional information that could be moved to the end of the sentence.
If you had written "Our second software guy, Heitor, 'and' software guy number one, Quentin" then the subject would be plural (Heitor and Quentin) and the correct verb would be "seem." [They seem to have solved the problem.]
The phrases "second software guy" and "software guy number one" are a bit confusing. I think that you mean that Quentin is your "primary" or "lead" software guy (or "technician") and that Heitor is your "secondary" or "backup" software guy. If you want to give Heitor most of the credit for solving the problem, then I would write the sentence differently: "Heitor, our backup software guy, seems to have solved the problem, with help from Quentin, who is our lead software guy."
Juan
P.S. I hope that I can learn to express myself as well in Spanish as you do in English.
This looks like a flat out duke-it-out free-for-all. The correct word for Heidita to use would have been "seem" (no "s", not seems). Her original post as it now shows is/was correct.
What was done by one guy AND another guy was done by "them". So, whatever the "it" (singular) that seems to have been done "they" (plural) seem to have been resposible for it.
Stand fast, Eddy. You seem to have been right the first time.
Samdie: An adverbial phrase ... and ... a parenthetical interpolation. But if you change some of the words to mean or express something else, then "solve" may also be substituted for "seem" or "seems". Forgive me, this all seems nutsy to me.
I confess, I dont have any idea what you seem to have written. Did you assist Lewis Carroll in writing The Jabberwocky? Is it any wonder our Aussie member wants to stick to "G'dye mate!". Seems fair to me, Anne Sherwood.
This looks like a flat out duke-it-out free-for-all. The correct word for Heidita to use would have been "seem" (no "s", not seems).
What was done by one guy AND another guy was done by "them". So, whatever the "it" (singular) that seems to have been done "they" (plural) seem to have been resposible for it.
Stand fast, Eddy. You seem to have been right the first time.
That´s why I have said nothing. They can quote adverbial clauses, composted rhetoric, subjugated adnouns all day long. the word "seems" in this case just doesn´t seem to fit.
Samdie,
Great reply! "parenthetical interpolation" - Mmm. I think I'll stick to..
"flat out like a biscuit" or, even, "flat out like a lizard drinking".
Annie.
And maybe to make it a bit clearer grammar-wise you would be correct in saying..
[/b]Our second software guy Heitor[b],together with software guy number one Quentin,[/b]seems to have solved the problem.[b]
Annie.
Hi here Eddy,
Oh I might have it wrong here and I'm not quite sure how to express it but...
Don't the commas around "together with .......Quentin" sort of eliminate that part of Heidita's sentence grammar-wise and so the "seem" or "seems" is referring to what H has done?
oh dear we/I always say 'seems'
For instance..
"I thought it was going to be cloudy but it now seems like the sun is going to shine"
I've got to admit, the English language is very strange!
Annie.
Quite possibly but the word together indicates "they" to me. But as I have said countless times before, grammar is not my strong point. Come to think of it, I don´t know which is my strong point.
I've got to admit, the English language is very strange!
Annie.
And especially in Australia. I have yet to recover from your "flat as a biscuit".
