ο ένας κλάδος μετά τον άλλο έχουν... Ή μήπως «έχει»;

[nickel]

Φυσικό μού φάνηκε το πληθυντικό, το «έχουν». Κάνω μια σύγκριση και στο Γκουγκλ: υπάρχουν και «έχουν» και «έχει», αλλά είναι ίσως περισσότερα τα πληθυντικά ρήματα. Σας ενοχλούν;

Ο ένας κλάδος μετά τον άλλο έχουν μάθει να παίρνουν την νομοθετική και εκτελεστική εξουσία στα χέρια τους
ο ένας τυφώνας μετά τον άλλο έχουν δυσχεράνει πολύ το έργο των σωστικών συνεργείων
«Θα τρέχουμε στο Ευρωμπάσκετ» δηλώνουν ο ένας διεθνής μετά τον άλλο
Η μια αναποδιά μετά την άλλη τον έχουν φέρει στα πρόθυρα νευρικής κρίσης.
Η μία έρευνα μετά την άλλη έχουν δείξει ότι η συγκεκριμένη παιδική εκπομπή...

αλλά και:
Γίνεται η μια υποχώρηση μετά την άλλη...
Καταρρέει η μια σοσιαλιστική κυβέρνηση μετά την άλλη!
Κλείνει η μια σχολή μετά την άλλη

 

[daeman]

Μπορεί να 'ναι ιδέα μου, αλλά στην πρώτη ομάδα το βλέπω συλλογικό, όχι ο ένας κλάδος, ο ένας τυφώνας, ο ένας διεθνής, η μία αναποδιά, η μία έρευνα, αλλά όλα μαζί. Στη δεύτερη όμως το υποκείμενο μού φαίνεται ατομικό, ότι αναφέρεται συγκεκριμένα στη μία υποχώρηση, κυβέρνηση, σχολή.

 

[sarant]

'Ίσως όχι τυχαία, στη δεύτερη περίπτωση που το ρήμα είναι σε ενικό, το ρήμα πάντα προηγείται.

 

[nickel]

Όχι τυχαία, αλλά με δική μου επιλογή. Βρήκα (λίγα) που ανήκουν και στη σύνταξη υποκείμενο + ρήμα:

η μια εξαγγελία μετά την άλλη έχει ως συνέπεια
Η μια ανακάλυψη μετά την άλλη έχει αποδείξει την ακρίβεια πολυάριθμων λεπτομερειών.

Όταν το ρήμα δεν έχει συνέχεια, υπάρχει και το ευκολότερο:
ο ένας παραιτείται μετά τον άλλο
να κάνει παρέα στο:
παραιτούνται ο ένας μετά τον άλλο

 

[pontios]

Take this with a grain of salt.

I agree with nickel here...you need to think in terms of the subject and the verb, to make sense of it.

I'm not sure if the same applies in Greek, but in English, if a sentence starts off in the form of .. one (thing) after another, it would be treated as a a single entity, and would assume the role of the subject in the sentence (as it is at the beginning thereof), so a single verb would be used.

e.g. (and this sentence just popped into my head, so it might not be the best sentence to use).
One experience after another has shaped my life ... (έχει).
One experience after another has shaped their lives...(έχει).

In reverse however - My life has been shaped by one experience after another. .. έχει
Their lives have been shaped by one experience after another... έχουν.

So their lives is the subject now and is in the plural form .. so accordingly the verb assumes the plural form.

It is a confusing sentence structure .. and breaking it down and studying the structure may help to cut through the confusion.
You can decide if the same logic applies in Greek.

 

[nickel]

The passive in your example is no problem, so we can forget about it. But the subject of the active is not just a cluster of words, it's also a notion. It's like talking about a group of people: The group has... A group of people have...

And, surprise surprise, here are a few examples with a plural verb:
One Government after another have paid lip service to 'caring' about UK Forces. (BBC) But then 'government' can be collective as well.
One ignored white paper after another have suggested solutions (The Guardian)
one crate after another are tossed aboard ship (BBC)
One witness after another have added their testimony (US Congress)
one country after another have brought in laws against computer piracy (Book)
And one with 'group':
One group after another are brought to their tables, only to baulk like horses at the stable gates. (This is definitely collective.)

Δεν είναι πάντως τόσο συνηθισμένο όσο στα δικά μας.

 

[pontios]

I was thinking in the collective/singular form only, for some reason ... and you've made a good and valid point nickel, something that I overlooked.

The sentence itself conveys whether we are talking about a collective single entity or a lot of separate individual things to be considered one at a time... and of course the form the verb assumes indicates this (singular in the collective/single entity and plural when we want to emphasise/distinguish its separate constituent components ).

Unless we stop and examine things analytically and correctly (as you have just brought home to me) we will just take them for granted and miss some important details.

 

[pontios]

Actually nickel, if you like we can discuss the equivalent English term in the appropriate forum as i think I was right the first time.
I hope I haven't hijacked this thread, but maybe if we unravel it in English, it may also prove helpful with the Greek term.

one thing or person after another
a series of things or people that seems without limit. It's just one problem after another. One customer after another has been buying shoes today!

We are talking about a series of separate items .. it's never a collective and has (as in singular) is correct.
So whereas successive governments have (as in a collective) .. one government after another has(i.e. each one in turn along the way has), it can only be has here (singular) and I maintain that the examples that you've given above with the plural verb are therefore wrong.

one government at a time is like saying each successive government .. so has (singular) must be the only option here - whereas successive governments is a collective group - and successive governments have (as in they have - plural).

I accepted what you told me initially as I automatically treated the newspapers you've quoted as valid sources - but are they ?
I actually think now that they may have got it wrong.
Both the Greek and equivalent English terms are clumsy (in my opinion) and should be avoided.

 

[pontios]

Also there is a big difference between the following two sentence structures....

One witness after another (where one witness at a time is effectively the subject) has given evidence ..(singular)
and witnesses have given evidence one after another .. where witnesses is the subject.

Where one thing after another is at the start of the sentence and is effectively the subject .. I expect has (or a singular verb).

 

[Philip]

Δεν είναι πάντως τόσο συνηθισμένο όσο στα δικά μας.

Υπάρχει βέβαια εναλλακτική έκφραση στα αγγλικά: government after government has/have, κλπ.

@pontius: I think here it might be better to talk in terms of tendencies rather than rules. Personally I do not see anything wrong with the plural form in these cases (and I am not sure what you mean by "examining things correctly" here).

 

[pontios]

Υπάρχει βέβαια εναλλακτική έκφραση στα αγγλικά: government after government has/have, κλπ.

@pontius: I think here it might be better to talk in terms of tendencies rather than rules. Personally I do not see anything wrong with the plural form in these cases (and I am not sure what you mean by "examining things correctly" here).

There are no tendencies philip, just hard and fast rules !
The hard and fast rule here is : if a sentence starts with one ... after another and if we are in the present tense what follows is a singular verb is, has, .. and you should never see the following for example .. one government after another are or have been, have paid etc,,
One government after another is, has been, has paid is correct (all singular).

One government at a time is the equivalent of it (singular) and never equates to they(plural), crudely speaking.
So the examples that nickel offered are incorrect, even if they have been published in books and newspapers.
I'm sorry for insisting and I'd like to be flexible and go with the flow etc.. but I can't in this instance, I've dug in my heels ,,apologies. :)
I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Apologies for hijacking this thread, but maybe it'll help with the Greek term ?

 

[Philip]

There are no tendencies philip, just hard and fast rules !
The hard and fast rule here is : if a sentence starts with one ... after another and if we are in the present tense what follows is a singular verb is, has, was ..

Καλησπέρα/καλημέρα Πόντιε,

was is not a good example of the rule you give ["present tense"]:), but where does this hard and fast rule come from, other than your assertion?

I could simply describe it as a tendency - "it's what most people do most of the time with this sort of construction" - and add an evaluative comment that it carries more prestige than the plural form.
Trouble is, there are so many things in language(s) generally that we do which are not easily amenable to rules: when does/should one use no + NOUN rather than not any + NOUN?

Φιλικά

 

[pontios]

Was is not a good example .. you're right, good pick up.
Just my assertion and hunch.
Anyway Philip do an advanced google search(if you're interested) .. "one government after another " - where it starts the sentence, or if it doesn't start the sentence is the subject in the sentence structure and see if you can come up with examples that disprove what I've propounded(and if there are some I'd be interested to know what proportion of the total search results do they represent? ).
I'm referring to the present tense .
If I'm proven wrong. so be it ,, I'm used to the idea !
cheers ..

 

[nickel]

I'm sorry I don't have the time to go into the details of the phenomenon, but obviously the most important feature here is collectivity — collective nouns and when a noun that is singular in its form is followed by a plural verb, which can often happen in English, but not as often in Greek. We never say «η κυβέρνηση έχουν», but here we have a phrase that may behave like a collective noun. It'd be interesting to compare the phenomenon in the two languages, and the shifts in translation. But let's not talk about rules. Collectivity is a notion, above all; hard to put the phenomenon in the straitjacket of rules.

 

[pontios]

Hi nickel.
Greetings to all from sunny Melbourne !
It's not the rule so much as the logic that I'm trying to grapple with here. My hard and fast rules comment was just me being flippant.
Government can also behave like a collective noun, as you point out, but an advanced google search of one government after another nevertheless reveals that a singular verb follows (to the complete exclusion of the collective sense of the term - in fact I couldn't find one example of the collective sense after viewing about 30 different results).

Against this you've quoted some examples from newspapers where the term (one thing after another) was treated as a collective - are they valid, rare exceptions ?
What can we logically conclude (and have we reached any conclusions ?) other than it's a clumsy term ?

By the way, I might choose a thread a week that I respond to and by focussing all my posts on the one thread and topic I may come across as pushing my point of view sometimes and I've probably gone too far again in this thread. I hope not. I don't want to dominate threads and respect everyone's view. Maybe I should ease back a little ?( a rhetorical question, I think I know the answer to that). ;)