<p>The background color on College Confidential is gray (gray89 to be precise), not white.</p>
<p>color=#e3e3e3</p>
<p>Yes, 'which' can refer to two or more objects, but in your question we are given a choice between only two objects, thus, one assumes that 'which' refers to just one, hence -- "Which of the following 2 statements IS..." -- unless, by your usage you are implicitly saying that BOTH are either correct or are incorrect statements, in which case one may say it your way.</p>
<p>bingo! I thought the same thing when I read his question. I just couldn't figure out how it was possible for both to be correct. :)</p>
<p>goliedad - So they are both correct statements! Now I see why you used 'which' as plural!</p>
<p>Goliedad -- Even the typesetting on that grammar reference looks antiquated. I'm far from an expert, but I'd love to see a current reference.</p>
<p>I looked at the link again. It was published in 1851! We may be ancient compared to some of the kids on this board, but speaking for myself, I'm not that old.</p>
<p>Ok, Burb Parent.</p>
<p>Look at Rule 14 at this link...</p>
<p>I believe this is very current.</p>
<p>Your research is good. But the basic rules of grammar are very slow to change.</p>
<p>LOL! I hadn't actually checked out the link until now. That's an 1851 publication, goaliedad! And it was published posthumously, so it was written -- by "George Spencer, A.M., late principal of The Utica Academy" -- even earlier than that!</p>
<p>From the Preface from that same book, I found these sentences that are so tortured they make a weekend at Guantanamo Bay seem like a walk in the park:</p>
<p>*“The Author thinks it due to himself to add, that the phraseology of this work is almost entirely his own, since the manner in which he has treated the subject, rendered the forms of expression used in other Grammars inapplicable to this.”</p>
<p>“If, however, the student be informed that such analysis is practiced merely to impress upon his mind, by frequent repetitions, the characteristics and modifications of the different classes of words, it may be a profitable exercise.”</p>
<p>“For, while it will be conceded that there are certain general principles common to all languages, it is equally clear that a Grammar designed to impart to the student a knowledge of a dead language, should be different in its plan and method from that designed to give him a knowledge of a living language, especially if it be his native tongue.”*</p>
<p>I recognize that I can be ponderous at times, but the late (VERY LATE) George Spencer isn’t someone I would hope to cure me of that malady.</p>
<p>Ahhh...Rule 14. Seems to me that, although Jane Straus wouldn't condemn the usage you indicated, my point earlier (in invisible ink at post #9) points to the preferred method. Instead of making jury plural where the jury is not acting uniformly, it would be better, according to Ms. Straus, to refer to the individual members (jurors) and use the plural verb form.</p>
<p>OK. Thanks. They did tip their hat to current usage by suggesting a better way in #14. </p>
<p>"Rule 14 Collective nouns such as team and staff may be either singular or plural depending on their use in the sentence.<br>
Examples The staff is in a meeting.
Staff is acting as a unit here. </p>
<p>The staff are in disagreement about the findings.
The staff are acting as separate individuals in this sentence. </p>
<p>The sentence would read even better like this:
The staff members are in disagreement about the findings."</p>
<p>I agree that using "the members of the jury" would be better form. However, if you recall, I set this discussion up as my favorite "trick" question. I didn't imply that this was great literature. It is still on the books.</p>
<p>I'm glad the OP (now long disinterested in the discussion), brought up the significant amount of disagreement between arguably well-educated students. I wonder how many of them would pass a thorough examination of their knowledge of grammar.</p>
<p>True. But the best "trick" of all with grammar is to know the rules and break them consciously! I use various devices -- most of which are verboten by Warriner's, the Chicago Manual of Style, et al. -- to communicate effectively. (Well, at least I hope that's how I'm communicating.) </p>
<p>In the end, as long as there is clear communication, the rules of grammar are like lines between the basepaths...they're a good suggestion but rarely should you remain glued to them. Just know where they are so you don't go too far astray and get called "out."</p>
<p>If you violate a rule but nobody calls you on it, does it matter? And did I just create a new Zen koan?</p>