What is the subject-verb in the sentence?

[prokopton]

Identifying the subject-verb.

The fear of freedom and responsibility LURK in the heart of men.
The fear of freedom and responsibility LURKS in the heart of men.

Is "fear" the subject or "freedom and responsibility" the subjects?

 

[TheDustyZebra]

Fear is the subject. Of freedom and responsibility is a prepositional phrase modifying fear.

Fear lurks.

Cue six more pages of discussion.

 

[chrispenycate]

Cue six more pages of discussion.

Not at all. The answer is complete, and above all correct. Why should more debate be required?

 

[HareBrain]

Why should more debate be required?

What??! The original poster has twice tried to paint us blokes as complete slackers scared of independence -- overgrown children, basically -- and you think we shouldn't even question it?

Sadly, in my case it's probably true. But some of you others really ought to argue.

 

[The Judge]

Re the lurk/lurks, TDZ is right, as is usual.

However, I'm not at all convinced that "men" plural has only one "heart" singular, so you might want to think about either "lurks in the hearts of all men" or "lurks in the heart of man" [possibly Man with a capital if you want to make the point about universality]. Alternatively, another sentence altogether might be an idea... (It reads as the kind of cod-philosophy I hate in novels, so I'm prejudiced against it, I'm afraid. As a piece of dialogue in the mouth of the right kind of person it would be fine, though.)

HB, you're exempted, since it says nothing about fear of freedom and responsibility lurking in the hearts of hares. Fear of bloody great eagles, lurchers and threshing machines, now that's another matter...

 

[Ray McCarthy]

"lurks in the heart of Man"

Sounds about right.

Why should more debate be required?

It's the Internet. We are not utilising it properly if the OP's child or grandchild doesn't discover this thread in many years time and is fascinated by the discussion on Mutant Rabbits.
Or Lagomorphs and their fear of the large feathered flying descendants of dinosaurs.
Are Guinea Pigs (Cavies) Lagomorphs? Maybe cousins.

 

[prokopton]

Re the lurk/lurks, TDZ is right, as is usual.

However, I'm not at all convinced that "men" plural has only one "heart" singular, so you might want to think about either "lurks in the hearts of all men" or "lurks in the heart of man" [possibly Man with a capital if you want to make the point about universality]. Alternatively, another sentence altogether might be an idea... (It reads as the kind of cod-philosophy I hate in novels, so I'm prejudiced against it, I'm afraid. As a piece of dialogue in the mouth of the right kind of person it would be fine, though.)

HB, you're exempted, since it says nothing about fear of freedom and responsibility lurking in the hearts of hares. Fear of bloody great eagles, lurchers and threshing machines, now that's another matter...

Hello,

From what I know, "heart" of men and "hearts" of men are both correct. Just as our "body" and our "bodies" are both grammatically correct.

Heart of men -> implies that every man has a heart, used as a collective/group noun.
Hearts of men -> used to denote distinction—to imply that the heart of each man is different.

As examples, the team "is" here and the team "are" here are both correct. Or Apple "is" a good company and Apple "are" a good company.

I could be wrong, though. If I'm, please let me know.

HareBrain, there was no social commentary intended. I was only seeking grammar advice.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Or Apple "is" a good company and Apple "are" a good company.

One is US and other UK. A company is a single virtual entity or an umbrella organisation.

Heart of men ->

Sounds wrong. "Heart of Man", where Man really implies mankind because it's capitalised.

 

[prokopton]

One is US and other UK. A company is a single virtual entity or an umbrella organisation.

Sounds wrong. "Heart of Man", where Man really implies mankind because it's capitalised.

I agree that "Heart of Man" is definitely correct. Or "heart of mankind." Both are more precise in their meaning.
However, I reserve my option to use the other two phrases.

As for a single entity being used as a singular or group noun, the group noun is being widely used because many writers/announcers are British. Almost every online mag I've read has used it as a group noun. Not to mention TV shows. The team are (the players, coaches, managers, etc.) here sounded awkward at first but made sense after awhile.

"English is the easiest language to learn, but the hardest to master."

 

[The Judge]

I've never come across anything which indicates that "heart" and "men" are acceptable**, though I'm largely self-taught in grammar, so if you have a definitive source I'll bow to it, but in its absence I'll continue to think it's a mistake. More importantly, to my mind, though, it feels wrong, (or sounds wrong, as Ray says) and the alternatives I give are both grammatically sound and feel right, which is why I'd suggest them as alternatives.

In any event, it's a very different matter from the use of singular/plural verbs for entities, part of which is indeed a US/UK split as Ray indicates, and part a difference between thinking of the organisation as a single whole, and as a collection of its individual elements, and part ignorance.


** In which respect I see the original was "Heart of oak are our ships" but when re-written became "Hearts of oak are our men", and another quote which I picked up from Terry Pratchett but which he undoubtedly filched from elsewhere is "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?"

 

[prokopton]

There are too many nuances with English literature.

"We've made up our mind." --> To my knowledge, this is correct.
"We've made up our minds." --> To my knowledge, this is also correct.

1. "Our body is a cesspool of poison because of eating processed food."
2. "Our bodies are cesspools of poisons because of eating processed foods."

Is 1 or 2 correct? We've been debating this on fb.

As for the original post, from now on I'll use either "Heart of Man" or "heart of mankind" or "hearts of men." Happy?

As for my definitive source, I use google or email a writer in residence.

I'm a beginner, so please be blunt and harsh. It's the fastest way to learn, imo.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

"The Judge" is regarded as fairly definitive by the denizens about here, if that's any help. I have the Internet too and about 11 reference books related to this subject, plus over 50 years obsessively frequent reading experience and I find the advice I have got here (nearly a year now) invaluable. It will make me lazy.

 

[The Judge]

Unless you're HM the Queen, it's the second option in both your examples which is correct -- "we" takes the plural noun. (Though I suppose aliens with group consciousness might think of themselves as having a single mind, and co-joined twins or someone with multiple personalities would have a single body yet might still refer to themselves/him/herself as "we". Outslde those rather limited cases, though, the rule holds good.)

I've been thinking about this further, trying to come up with some examples when the singular of heart/mind/body/whatever could be coupled with an otherwise usually plural subject, eg where it's used figuratively not literally such as "The heart of our people is steadfast" referring to the people as a single entity in the same way as "The courage of our people" but I still don't think it works and "The hearts of the people" is by far better.


By the way, we all use Google to check things quickly, but do be careful when perusing random blogs and the like -- you've no way of knowing how expert anyone is, and whether what is said is accurate. As to which, Ray is kind to suggest it, but I have no more credentials than he has himself, since, as I said, I'm largely self-taught. What I've learnt, though, is to trust my instincts from a lifetime of reading well-written books. Chrispenycate has studied grammar more than I have, I think, and I suspect TDZ has a complete library of grammar books which she has memorised.

 

[tinkerdan]

Identifying the subject-verb.

The fear of freedom and responsibility LURK in the heart of men.
The fear of freedom and responsibility LURKS in the heart of men.

Is "fear" the subject or "freedom and responsibility" the subjects?

Looking at the original question what I would look at is::

Fear lurk in the heart of men
or
Fear lurks in the heart of men

I favor fear lurks in the heart of men
Because
I would see fears lurk in the heart of men.

As to the issue of heart of men over hearts of men.

If you are comfortable with some readers being confused as to whether you mean some metaphoric collective 'heart' then you can leave it. Other wise for clarity I'd change it to be::

The fear of freedom and responsibility LURKS in the hearts of men.

Which to me means it lurks in everyone individually whereas the metaphor might indicate something that only lurks when there are a large number of men collected together so we should avoid large groups of people unless we relish fear.

Much like saying it is fear that drives the mob.
let's take for instance this simple statement.

That's one small step for a man; one giant leap for mankind.

That's one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind.

Some might argue that they say the same thing but in one significant interpretation they are quite different.