Q: In a federal circuit opinion (U.S. v. Mitov), the following sentence appeared: “Neither men were successful in their endeavor.” I think the sentence should read, “Neither man was successful in his endeavor.” What do you think?

A: Downers Grove Attorney Mark Johnson, who submitted this question, is right-- and the drafter of the opinion needs grammar lessons. The adjective phrase neither man is singular, so the sentence should read, “Neither of the two men was successful ....” If more than two men were involved, the statement should read, “None of the men were successful.”

The writer of the opinion may have had the mistaken idea that none is unacceptable in this phrase because it is a singular pronoun. Other readers have stated that opinion. True, the English pronoun none did mean “not one” in Middle English (circa 1000 to 1400), being derived from two Middle English words, no (not) and an (one). But none has evolved to mean “not any”; none can mean either “not one” or “not any” and can take either a singular or plural verb.

Like either and neither, the pairs either/or and neither/nor require a singular verb when both of the nouns that follow are singular. So in a statement like, “Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was happy with the decision,” the singular verb was is proper. And when both nouns are plural, the verb should be plural, so the following sentence is correct: “Neither the salesclerks nor their supervisors were on time.”

• Neither the advisory board nor the man-agers were present at the planning session.

• Neither I nor my colleagues were responsible for the error.

• Neither my colleagues nor I was responsible for the error

But many people will agree that the last sentence seems awkward and un-idiomatic.” So some grammarians would re-arrange the sentence to place the plural noun close to the verb, so it would then read like the first one: “Neither I nor my colleagues were responsible for the error.” But other grammarians insist that the sentence be re-written entirely without the neither/nor construction; for example, “My colleagues and I were not responsible for the error.”

Q:Wheaton correspondent Dick Bales notes that both Honda and Chrysler ads promise “well-qualified buyers” that they may now buy “pre-owned cars.” (In Florida, cars are not only “pre-owned,” they are “gently pre-owned.”)

Everyone knows that pre-owned cars are the same cars that used to be called used cars (or even earlier, second-hand cars), but who, asks Attorney Bales, are well-qualified buyers, and how do they differ from merely qualified buyers?

A: Today's “well-qualified buyers” differ from yesterday's “qualified buyers” no more than today's “pre-owned cars” differ from yesterday's “used cars.” Car dealers want to get your attention, and try to capture it by strengthening the modifier. That's not a new idea: we've been doing it since written records, and probably before.

But this effort has unintended consequences. My favorite illustration of the results of strengthening the modifier is what has happened to the word very, which was once the adjective verray, meaning “true.” If you recall Chaucer's “Canterbury Tales,” you know that in The Knight's Tale Chaucer spoke admiringly about the “knyght,” who, Chaucer says, “was a verray, parfit, gentil knyght” (that is,“a true, perfect, genteel knight”).

But because very has been used over the years to prop-up other adjectives, it has lost its own former status and in modern English has become only an “intensifier,” an adverb that strengthens the adjective it precedes. The original meaning of very survives only in a few phrases like, “the very person for the job” and “this very minute.”

But that behavior of English speakers con----tinues. The adjective well is so often attached to other adjectives that it is often only an intensifier in phrases like well-fed, well-known, well-read, and well-spoken. Instead of well, most people now respond good to answer the question, “How are you doing?” But good itself has become an intensifier in the phrase good and ready. And teenagers use the adjective wicked as an intensifier in the phrase “wicked good.” That may not make sense to you, but teenagers know that in that context wicked means “very” (or even “exceedingly”). So in the dialect of teenagers, wicked is a compliment.

But the downside of all this is that not only does the intensifier lose its power; so does the adjective to which it is attached. When the intensifiers super, terrific, fabulous, fantastic (and the like) are attached to adjectives, not only do they lose meaning, but the adjectives they prop-up also weaken, so that the hoped-for emphasis is at best momentary.

After reading the August “Language Tips,” a reader worried that he might be making a grammatical error when naming a partnership in a real estate conveyance. He often names the partnership “ABC Farms, a partnership composed of X, Y, and Z.” He asked whether he should have used the verb comprise : “ABC Farms, a partnership comprising X, Y, Z.” The answer is “no.” Comprised means composed of; the two terms are equivalent.

POTPOURRI:

In the September "Language Tips," a final "e" appeared in the word "therefore" in the citation of Florida Statutes Annotated. The proper spelling should have been "therefor."