A WORD, PLEASE:

Ask any grammar buff about agreement, and chances are she’ll talk your ear off. She’ll tell you that verbs must always agree in number with their subjects. She may even tell you about some of her own agreement-related peeves, like how people sometimes use a singular verb with a word like “data,” which in the strictest sense is supposed to be a plural. In other words, you’ll get an earful on subject-verb agreement.

It’s also possible your grammar aficionado will go off on a tangent about “pronoun-antecedent agreement” — the scary-sounding name for the very simple idea that plural pronouns should stand in only for plural nouns and singular pronouns should stand in for singular nouns. These are tough times for proponents of that rule, as grammarians become ever-more accepting of “they” and “their” referring to singular things. For example, “Every patron should be sure their car is securely locked.” Traditionalists say that because “patron” is singular, you can’t use the plural “their” here. Others say that “their” is a good way to avoid the clunky “his or her.”

But, while pretty much any grammar buff will talk a blue streak about these agreement issues, there’s one type of agreement about which, I guarantee, you won’t hear a word.

Look at these sentences: “All parents should arrive at the school no later than 4 p.m. to pick up their child.” “The suites feature Jacuzzi tubs and a balcony.” “Homeowners throughout the country should buy an insurance policy tailored to their unique needs.”

Subject-object agreement, or subject-complement agreement, is the secret shame of pretty much everyone who works with words — including grammar experts. In the sentences above, it raises questions such as: How can all the parents have just one child among them? Do the suites all have two or more Jacuzzis but just one balcony? How many homeowners can you put on a single policy?

These agreement problems are really logic problems. And often there’s no good solution.

A purist will tell you that all the elements should agree. Plural parents have plural children. Therefore, they say, it should be “parents pick up their children,” not “child.” But the solution creates some problems of its own. For one thing, it could be construed to mean that every single parent involved has “children” and that, therefore, no parent can have just one. It could also be construed to mean that the children are “their” children, with the “their” referring to all the parents — one big happy family, though probably not what the writer intended.

Words like “each” and “respective” can get you out of some pickles. But they get old pretty fast, especially when all your wording reflects an iron-willed commitment to precision: “Each parent should pick up his or her respective child or children.”

So, what to do? The truth is, no one really knows. But Atlantic Monthly columnist and “Word Court” author Barbara Wallraff offers some sound advice: “When one is at pains to make clear that the individuals in the subject are to be paired one apiece with the persons, places or things in question, the number of the noun can’t be relied on to make the point, and other clues must be given. (‘Each of the bigamists relied heavily on his wives.’)”

However, Wallraff says, usually the question of how many subjects correspond with how many objects is either “obvious or beside the point.” In those situations, you should all just use your common senses.

 JUNE CASAGRANDE is a freelance writer and author of “Grammar Snobs Are Great Big Meanies” and “Mortal Syntax: 101 Language Choices That Will Get You Clobbered by the Grammar Snobs — Even If You’re Right.” She may be reached at JuneTCN@aol.com.