Use of Get vs Gets

[kwbMitel]

Something sounds off to me when it comes to the usage below

You get it | Sounds normal
Someone else gets it | Sounds normal

Sometimes Neither you nor someone else get it (or is it gets it)

A commercial is playing on the radio about loss of employment insurance. They say the following:

"if either you or your spouse gets laid off..." Get sounds better to me but I've been fooled before.

**********************************************
What's most important is that you realise ... There is no spoon.

 

[guitarzan]

To me, the first sentence below is correct because the phrase preceding "get/gets" (in yellow) is correct. In the second sentence, the blue phrase part is incorrect, therefore that sentence is incorrect.

if either you or [highlight #FCE94F]your spouse gets laid off[/highlight]

if either you or [highlight #729FCF]your spouse get laid off[/highlight]

But that's just how it sounds to me. I have no idea what rule of grammar to base that on.

 

[kwbMitel]

@Guitarzan

I get where your going but it is the opposite of my normal method of determining these things

Usually you drop the additional data and see how the sentence sounds without it. In this case the addition is the spouse.

It just sounds weird to me and I've gone over it in my head enough that neither sounds correct anymore, thus the question









**********************************************
What's most important is that you realise ... There is no spoon.

 

[Olaf Doschke]

I couldn't even tell you for the german equivalent. Perhaps the feel for the right choice is easier with another verb:

If either you or your spouse are laid off
If either you or your spouse is laid off

To me both of them sound correct, the first one refers to you or your spouse as a (possible) plural. The second one uses the verb form for the spouse.

A sure way out obvioulsy is writing it out verbose:
If either you get laid off or your spouse gets laid off

I'd perhaps solve it in two sentences. First mentioning you and your spouse in any way, second sentence saying "If either one (of us) gets laid off."

Bye, Olaf.

 

[2ffat]

If either you or your spouse are laid off...

This is correct. You is plural. You would say, "If you are laid off," but you would not say, "You is laid off."

I had a couple of English teachers who forbade us from using "get" or "gets" in our sentences. We would get marked down if we used them. Their excuse was that it "wasn't proper English," but I suspect that the rules were too ambiguous for them to figure out when to use them. ;-)


James P. Cottingham
I'm number 1,229!
I'm number 1,229!

 

[ChrisHirst]

You is plural.

Not necessarily.

You is both singular and plural depending on the context.

singular:
It's not you, it's me (which can have the the exact opposite meaning depending on the sex (not gender) of the speaker)

plural:
Both of you,
All of you,
Some of you,
One of you,
None of you,

"gets" would usually indicate a future tense or a past action

Spot gets a bone
Spot gets the ball
Jack gets his face slapped for disagreeing with Jill when she says "It's not me, it's YOU"

get would be used in a command structure.

Spot, get the ball.

etc...


Hey, nobody ever said correct English was simple


Chris.

Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Time flies like an arrow, however, fruit flies like a banana.
Webmaster Forum

 

[SamBones]

You is plural.

Y'All = Singular
All Y'All = Plural

 

[strongm]

>"gets" would usually indicate a future tense or a past action

Er, 3rd person singular simple present tense

 

[ChrisHirst]

Please note the use of the adverb "usually", Which is representative of "commonly" "generally", "ordinarily", "customarily", "traditionally", "historically", "typically" and so on.

My post was NOT intended as a complete, comprehensive treatise on the usage, whether correctly, appropriately, syndactyly or colloquially.

Also to be grammatically correct the word for a "3rd person singular simple present tense" would be got, which could also be used in the first person present OR past tense.

eg: Jack got laid, (past action) ... ... Jill got herpes.

and in the above example "gets" could replace "got" with no loss of meaning.

Moreover pre-pending "if" to the statement will produce a future tense to both claims, as in;

If Jack gets laid, Jill gets herpes.

This statement of course this assumes no use of prophylactic contraception by the participants, and assumes that 'gets' as a word or concept is part of your local vernacular.

Chris.

Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Time flies like an arrow, however, fruit flies like a banana.
Webmaster Forum

 

[Olaf Doschke]

I saw it ... arriving.

Bye, Olaf.

 

[strongm]

'gets' is not - in proper English - used commonly, generally or ordinarily as past participle. It is "usually" a present participle

> in the above example "gets" could replace "got" with no loss of meaning.

Not a loss, perhaps, but it certainly changes it.

>If Jack gets laid, Jill gets herpes.
>a future tense to both claims

No, the first clause is a First Conditional clause, and first conditionals take the present tense. The second clause is a dependent of the first conditional, and is therefore also using the present tense. Effectively, we are using the present tense to discuss a hypothetical future. This is perfectly good English, and in no way turns 'gets' into a past participle.

 

[johnherman]

You're gonna get it.

http://www.tompetty.com/album/youre-gonna-get-it-683356

==================================
adaptive uber info galaxies (bigger, better, faster, and more adept than cognitive agile big data clouds)

 

[Olaf Doschke]

The only case you would be plural in "you or your spouse" would be when this would address a harem.

Bye, Olaf.

 

[hjgoldstein]

This thread has gotten off track

Aspiring to mediocrity since 1957

 

[kwbMitel]

@ hjgoldstein

AS OP, I really like these discussions and where they go.

It's basically the whole point of this forum IMO.

**********************************************
What's most important is that you realise ... There is no spoon.

 

[djj55]

Get it, got it, good.

It would help if there were fewer exceptions in English.

I believe this has been discussed before. Not sure though.

djj
The Lord is my shepherd (Psalm 23) - I need someone to lead me!

 

[ChrisHirst]

AS OP, I really like these discussions and where they go.

It's basically the whole point of this forum IMO.

Definitely, and the title doesn't say it has to be a good impression

Chris.

Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Time flies like an arrow, however, fruit flies like a banana.
Webmaster Forum

 

[hjgoldstein]

Mine was a tongue in cheek comment and a play on words. Sometimes I feel that people take things too literally. I shan't bother you again.

 

[ChrisHirst]

Mine was a tongue in cheek comment and a play on words. Sometimes I feel that people take things too literally. I shan't bother you again.

Yeah, I think we got that and continued in a similar vein.

Chris.

Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Time flies like an arrow, however, fruit flies like a banana.
Webmaster Forum

 

[philhege]

The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe. No, wait; I mean the crux of the matter is the neither...nor construction.

It typically takes a singular verb. Sounds awkward, and is disappearing from general use, but hey, a rule's a rule.

http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/subjectVerbAgree.asp

-----------
With business clients like mine, you'd be better off herding cats.