grammar - Is this sentence grammatical: "all there is, are idiolects?"



Someone please explain why singular to plural to singular is correct. In my opinion, this makes no sense.


Edit for clarification of what I'm asking: My point is that double linking verbs are not OK as they lack an object in between (and cannot share a subject or object in such cases). One of my sources for this is here: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/when-are-double-words-ok?page=1


And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_copula, which is partially relevant. Except that we're taking it to a whole new level by changing plurality of a word!


Also: https://www.quora.com/When-did-the-double-is-usage-as-in-the-thing-is-is-become-common-or-at-least-unremarkable


Same idea goes for sentences like "All there is is a cat" (which, again, I find ungrammatical) or "A cat is is all there" (flipped around version, or the predicate adjective form of the predicate nominative using the same singular form instead of going from plural to singular or singular to plural which is an even more extreme case of incorrectness I believe).


BUT, people still say things like this: "all there is are socks." So why not say, "all there are is a sock?" Same idea in terms of grammar? Or is that wrong? Why can a predicate nominative not be flipped to a predicate adjective form? Quite confused here.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

verbs - "Baby is creeping" vs. "baby is crawling" in AmE

commas - Does this sentence have too many subjunctives?

grammatical number - Use of lone apostrophe for plural?

etymology - Where does the phrase "doctored" originate?

phrases - Somebody is gonna kiss the donkey

typography - When a dagger is used to indicate a note, must it come after an asterisk?

etymology - Origin of "s--t eating grin"