Pedants' Paradise

[Bryn]

Oliver Soden, in Michael Tippett, The Biography (page 112):

A number of university students, some local but most from Germany and Scandinavia, was recruited by Gardiner to join the miners,.....

Which particular (singular) number would that be?

A shame, as I'd been enjoying reading it up till then.

Apart from the lack of specificity, what is the basis of your criticism in this instance?

[Pulcinella]

Apart from the lack of specificity, what is the basis of your criticism in this instance?

A number of students were recruited, not was!

[Bryn]

A number of students were recruited, not was!

In which case, your criticism is unfounded. Number is a singular noun.

[Pulcinella]

In which case, your criticism is unfounded. Number is a singular noun.

Number is indeed a singular noun.
It just happens that in such instances it takes a plural verb!

Example from Practical English Usage, OUP (section 526.2):

A number of people have tried to find the treasure, but they have all failed.

Other examples given:
A group of us are going to take a boat through the French canals.
A couple of my friends plan to open a travel agency.
A lot of social problems are caused by unemployment.
The majority of criminals are non-violent.
Some of these are relations and the rest are old friends.
Half of his students don't understand a word he says.

[gurnemanz]

In which case, your criticism is unfounded. Number is a singular noun.

Excuse me chipping in ... I can't see why the writer thought "was" might be correct here. The subject of the sentence is not "a number" (singular) but "a number of students" (plural), just the same as if he had written "several students", "many students" or "27 students").

[Pulcinella]

Excuse me chipping in ... I can't see why the writer thought "was" might be correct here. The subject of the sentence is not "a number" (singular) but "a number of students" (plural), just the same as if he had written "several students", "many students" or "27 students").

Indeed. I suspect some over-zealous (and ill-informed) subediting!

[Bryn]

Looks like Fowler concurred that your preference is "safe" when "number" is preceded by an indefinite article.

[Bryn]

Excuse me chipping in ... I can't see why the writer thought "was" might be correct here. The subject of the sentence is not "a number" (singular) but "a number of students" (plural), just the same as if he had written "several students", "many students" or "27 students").

Fowler makes a distinction between "the number of . . . " and "a number of . . . ". He asserts that the former can safely be treated as singular, the latter as a plural.

[Pulcinella]

Fowler makes a distinction between "the number of . . . " and "a number of . . . ". He asserts that the former can safely be treated as singular, the latter as a plural.

Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

(Revelation of St John, 13: 18)

[Bryn]

Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

(Revelation of St John, 13: 18)

But is that not a mistranslation? I seem to recall that the original was later found to be 616.

[Pulcinella]

But is that not a mistranslation? I seem to recall that the original was later found to be 616.

If so, you'd better tell teamsaint, as he thinks he lives next door!

[Pabmusic]

Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

(Revelation of St John, 13: 18)

Well, perhaps, but the oldest manuscript of the Apocalypse of John (P. 115) and other ancient sources give the number of the beast as 616.

[french frank]

Well, perhaps, but the oldest manuscript of the Apocalypse of John (P. 115) and other ancient sources give the number of the beast as 616.

Isn't this absolutely fascinating? Not something I'd come across before and it takes some getting to the bottom of. Or something of which it takes some getting to the bottom. (Or something to the bottom of which … )

First point in dealing with manuscripts is that the oldest is not necessarily the most reliable since it may derive from a (lost) manuscript which was itself corrupt, whereas later ones derive from another lost source which was accurate.

What a cursory search hasn't yet explained to a beginner is how χιϛ (chi iota sigma) is interpreted as 616 and χξς’ (chi xi sigma) is 666. Any offers?

[vinteuil]

.

... your starter for iota :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_numerals

Papyrus 115 is of interest. I like the theory that it was 616 or 666 depending on how you chose to spell 'Nero'....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_115

.

[Bryn]

Isn't this absolutely fascinating? Not something I'd come across before and it takes some getting to the bottom of. Or something of which it takes some getting to the bottom. (Or something to the bottom of which … )

First point in dealing with manuscripts is that the oldest is not necessarily the most reliable since it may derive from a (lost) manuscript which was itself corrupt, whereas later ones derive from another lost source which was accurate.

What a cursory search hasn't yet explained to a beginner is how χιϛ (chi iota sigma) is interpreted as 616 and χξς’ (chi xi sigma) is 666. Any offers?

Reckoned by some to down to whether the Greek or Latin spelling of Nero is numeralised.