Ed M. answered • 04/27/16
Tutor
4.9
(40)
Help with grammar, French, SAT Writing, the TOEFL and ESL.
The traditional rule is that when the subject of a verb is a compound noun phrase consisting of two or more noun phrases joined by the coordinator or (which is normally expressed only between the last two noun phrases, i.e., you, a family member, or a friend instead of you, or a family member, or a friend), the verb shows person/number agreement only with the last noun phrase in the sequence, that is, the person and number of the preceding noun phrase(s) should be ignored completely for the purposes of verb agreement. In other words, it doesn't matter that in your example one of the compound subjects is you which requires have and not has; because the last noun phrase in the compound subject--i.e., the one directly after or--is the singular a friend, the singular verb has "must" be used, according to this traditional rule.
And note also that if this rule is followed strictly, the second verb in the compound verb phrase has been diagnosed with cancer and need a second opinion must also be singular, i.e., the "correct" way to say this would be has been diagnosed with cancer and needs a second opinion.
This is in contrast to the rule that when the coordinator for the compound noun phrase is and, by definition this makes any compound subject plural even one that consists of two singular noun phrases, e.g., a family member and a friend, and therefore a plural verb is always used (or "should" be), e.g., if a family member and a friend have been diagnosed (cf. if a family member has been diagnosed and if a friend has been diagnosed).
But sometimes the traditional rule concerning verb agreement with compound subjects joined by or is "violated" when the subject noun phrase is notionally considered collective and plural, that is, despite the presence of or the subjects are being thought of not as mutually exclusive choices--the meaning normally imparted by or--but rather with a "no matter" meaning, i.e., in your example something like 'it doesn't matter whether you are diagnosed, or a family member is diagnosed, or a friend is diagnosed, if (all of) you need a second opinion . . .', which therefore might explain why in some situations one might indeed say if you, a family member, or a friend have been diagnosed even though this would be contrary to the rules of traditional grammar (and indeed many people would label such a construction as "incorrect").
Ed M.
You're very welcome; I really appreciate your following up and your kind words.
It occurs to me also that one way to get around the whole problem of has vs.
have in your example would be to reorder the subjects, i.e., if you wrote instead "If a family member, a friend, or you . . ." then there's no question the following verb would have to be
have to agree with you. Of course, if you did that I believe you'd be slightly and perhaps undesirably changing your original emphasis in that I sense the way you originally had it, with
you first, is the most "natural" way as presumably the primary audience for the advice you're giving is the hearer/reader--you--and the fact that your hearer's/reader's friend or a family member may also get the same diagnosis is relevant but again not as central as the idea that "you" might have this diagnosis and what to do if
you need a second opinion.
A good illustration of how sometimes trying to comply with the rules of "good grammar" can really make the job for which we actually use language, to communicate and communicate effectively, a lot harder.
Report
04/27/16
Cheri L.
04/27/16