Posted by Henry on November 30, 2003
In Reply to: Concord: do or does posted by Anders on November 30, 2003
: Just now I was reading the liner notes to the Chet Baker CD called simply "Chet". It says: "Although this album is entirely devoted to explorations of the ballad mood, it includes considerable variety. Approach, instrumentation, even tempo does not remain constant here." I'm interested in the second sentence; the first is included merely for the sake of providing context. It sounds all right, so it may not strike you as odd; indeed, I believe it is grammatically in order. However, consider this sentence, which, as it were, lurks in the background: "Approach, instrumentation, AND tempo DO not remain constant here." That is, I've taken out "even" and inserted "and." Now, clearly "does" becomes "do." So, why is "does" correct in the original sentence (and "do" wrong)? I suppose because of "even," which is associated with "tempo." Try to replace "does" with "do" in the original sentence - clearly, this is wrong! We are told that tempo does not remain constant, but there seems to be a verb lacking for "approach" and "instrumentation." That is, when speaking in terms of concord, indeed, the verb is lacking; but, in terms of meaning, the two nouns "borrow" from "does." This is why the "and . . . do" sentence lurks in the background. I don't know what grammarians call this structure. Your comments will be much appreciated. Thanks.
There's an omission in the original phrase. We don't know if the writer is referring to each of the items or all of them. It could be amended in a number of ways. It might have been written;
Approach, instrumentation, even tempo; each does not remain constant here.
Approach, instrumentation, even tempo; all do not remain constant here.
It could be rewritten as you suggest;
Approach, instrumentation and even tempo do not remain constant here.
The use of 'do' in the original doesn't sound obviously wrong to my ears;
Approach, instrumentation, even tempo do not remain constant here.