Grammar Chat

^ if you ask me, something like the last option (in this case). i think you should at least make it 'We had one square, one oval and two circular plates'. that makes more sense when you read it. not 100% sure what is grammatically correct.

But if you read the sentence as

then the sentence makes sense.  But is it then, or still, grammatically correct?

^ if you only had one circular plate, you'd be all like:

there's no issue here. 'plate', in its singular form, is implied with the first two shapes. as dubois' complete sentence shows, the problem arises because you start by naming the shape of which there are multiple, then continue on with shapes of which there are single:

it is not right to imply 'plates' (because of the singles), but neither is it right to imply 'plate' (because of the multiple). it reads especially awkward because the multiple shape is at the beginning of the sentence, and you remember it better, or something. my avoidance of the issue by putting the multiple at the end is just so it becomes more logical to the brain, but it is just a strange issue imo. if we have to settle for something i tend to agree with Strunk and White, awkward as it is.
i still think my workaround is best.

As always, the issue is more complicated in the actual setting of the office where it sometimes makes more sense to list particular adjectives first.
When I said your solution avoided the issue, I meant that if we rearranged the order the way you suggested then both 'theories' give the same conclusion. The theories are
1. Plural is based on how many things total.
2. Plural is based on how many things were in the last list item.
Your solution allows for either of them to be correct. That *does* make your sentence sound most sensible. I completely agree with that. But the interesting example is when one theory suggests a different outcome from the other as in the case when there is only one of each (circular, oval and rectangle).

I hadn't thought that having a multiple earlier in the list but ending with a single to be all that meaningful to the question I was asking, except that it did offer your workaround.

I'm afraid I will simply have to disagree with you upon that point. I think the sentence is really quite grammatically elegant. Upon first sight I knew instantly the singular form to be proper, and only referred to the glorious Elements of Style that I might provide some authority as a buttress to my own position.

I fancied that we might be dealing with an English as a second language issue, as in most romance languages (to say nothing of Russian) the sentence structure, and thus the question of plurality, would be handled differently. But I digress, and will take this opportunity to point out the sentences use of the Oxford comma as an excuse to post this:

@ethrg: nice example! funny too

@jabroneous: i think you just said essentially the same thing i tried to say. i'm no native speaker so sometimes have trouble finding the right words, especially when it comes to meta-stuff like finding words for talking about words, so your explanation is a lot more clear than mine.

@NoOutlet: agree with you on the issue of having the 'workaround' or 'avoidance' answer both of the conflicting rules.
the problem here lies with grammar. you need to consider what it is, exactly.

people have been using language to communicate long before someone got the idea to put things down on paper and start describing certain rules for the use of language. as a result, these rules do not cover all the possibilities, because language is the result of a natural evolution which cannot be caught in a set of rules. that's the reason why there are so many exceptions, and why you can have examples like yours where it seems to come down to a matter of 'what sounds best' or 'what is most esthetically pleasing'.

my solution: go with the rules when they make sense, but when you run into strange stuff, go with the esthetically pleasing. which is what i did with my 'workaround'.