6000 ml tumescent solution were/was infiltrated per session.
English translation: 6000 ml tumescent solution was infiltrated per session.
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
English term or phrase:
6000 ml tumescent solution were/was infiltrated per session.
English translation:
6000 ml tumescent solution was infiltrated per session.
Well, for what's it's worth, I agree with all that. "Two bottles" is a different case from "two litres", which is different again from "three quarters". I think it is wrong to reject "was infiltrated" here. Really, questions of agreement like this depend on how the speaker is thinking about the subject, not on parsing the syntax as if it were Latin.
"Fewer than two inches shorter" is just wrong, in my book. You could construct a theoretical defence of it in special circumstances, but I can't believe anyone not corrupted by half-baked grammatical theory would actually say it. It's all the fault of people telling them that they can't say "less than two", they have to say "fewer than two". They take that lesson away and misapply it.
Yes, it's a grey area. I'd definitely say "Two bottles were drunk" (and they usually are when I'm around), but that's because we're talking about two physical objects, not just a measurement. We tend to use numerical measurements as singular quantifiers. I remember a whole discussion on the IoL forum about whether you should say "it's less than/fewer than two inches shorter". I think I managed to persuade most of them that "less than" was correct and "fewer than" hypercorrect, or wrong.
I don't think 'were' would be completely wrong in this context, I just think 'was' is common usage and sounds better.
I think you have a point. I have been reconsidering this myself.
I would certainly say "Three quarters of the wine has been drunk". However, this is not a perfect analogy. "Three quarters" and "6000 ml" are different kinds of quantifying determiners; the former expresses a proportion of a singular noun and the latter a quantity. I would say "Two bottles of the wine were drunk". Would you say "was drunk"? What about "Two litres of the wine was drunk"? I think I would still say "were drunk", but I am less sure than with "Two bottles". Does this mean that "litres" is a quantifying determiner and "bottles" isn't? Or does it mean that a plural quantifying determiner of a singular noun may or may not call for a singular verb, depending on the type of determiner? Or am I simply losing my grip?
In the case of these 6000 ml of solution, I must honestly say that "was infiltrated" doesn't strike me as wrong, and though I don't want to decide grammatical questions by Google, I am struck by the fact that in expressions of this kind the verb is rather more often singular than plural (though it is very often plural). I think this is a more complicated question than it first appears.
is a quantifying determiner of the singular noun 'solution' and so the verb should be singular.
Would you say, for example, "Three quarters of the wine has been drunk" or "have been drunk"? I hope the former, as the latter sounds odd in my view and would be a form of hypercorrection.
The translation workplace 
peer agreement (net): +3