I updated to 21.5.44 today (desktop edition, Windows). For the first time that I’m aware of, when viewing the Receipts tab I noticed an alert at the top saying, “There is one or more uncategorized receipts which can categorized using receipt rules”.
Thankfully clicking on “Go back” takes me back to the Receipts tab and I can continue working, so it’s not interrupting my work, but I was curious to see what the uncategorised receipts were and if I should be fixing anything or could improve my workflow.
Gramatically it should NOT be “There is one or more uncategorized receipts which can be categorized using receipt rules”, but “There are one or more uncategorized receipts which can be categorized using receipt rules”. Replacing which with that is even better so it would be: “There are one or more uncategorized receipts that can be categorized using receipt rules”
Please note: the subject is “…uncategorized receipts…” in this case you have to use the finite verb “are”. The golden rule is that verb and subject must agree. The Oxford example correctly states that you should not use “are” but “is” if each of the elements agrees separately with the verb (note that in this sentence the subject is each not elements and thus the finite verb is “agrees”). TInt he example both sandwich and snack (singular) can and should be used with "is. For example “…This sandwich is delicious and that snack is delicious also…” However, it is incorrect to write this sandwiches (same for snacks) is delicious. Similarly you must use: one receipt is needed and uncategorized receipts are needed. When “blending them” into one or more uncategorized receipts then you must use are and not is.
We were commenting on what the top of the screen in the first screenshot in yellow writes (see below):
To go back to Manager assume a substitution where receipts become people then "…There is one or more uncategorized people which can be categorized using country rules…” is incorrect and should read "…There are one or more uncategorized people who can be categorized using country rules…” Note I also had to change “which” to “who” but in the case of receipts (not persons) I advised to change it to “that”.
I have had a look at this on the Internet and I will concede that @eko may be more in agreement with the majority thought - however there is considerable disagreement on this point, amongst shall we call them English professors. Most agree with Eko, but quite a few disagree. It depends on where you grew up.
In the end it doesn’t matter which way Manager writes it, some people will disagree. I am of the opinion that there is not a right or a wrong way - the way English is spelt and spoken has changed considerably over the centuries and we all say, pronounce and write things differently. To assume that there is a correct way and a wrong way is not the right way to think about the use of language. Language is a living thing.
Personally I would be using (s) to indicate singular, plural - so basically all roads lead to Rome kind of thing.
So I would suggest abandoning this point because there will never be agreement on this. Even English professors dispute this point. So the debate is esoteric.
Having said that, while I do believe that Language is a living thing and there is no right or wrong way to do it, I still personally get irritated when Americans spell colour and favourite etc without the “u”.
As long as we’re tut-tutting, receipts is not a subject of the sentence, although it sounds like one in conversation. It is a modifier. The sentence has a compound subject, both of which are singular: one and more. @Ealfardan was correct, with tongue firmly in cheek.
While it could be, may carries more implications of permission in modern usage, while can carries more implications of ability. Since no one—and definitely not the program—needs any permission to do anything with their receipts, the notice calls attention to that fact that the program has the ability to categorize the receipt or receipts with rules. Therefore, I would recommend can rather than may. How’s that for pedantic?