Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Primary clause uses singular, subordinate co-reference is plural, what verb to use in English?

+2
−0

I sometimes find myself writing sentences with subordinate clauses where there is number mismatch between the primary and subordinate clauses. For example:

The oath he swore, those words about serving all the people and not just the favored ones, (was | were) just fluff to him.

The general rule I learned is to ignore subordinate clauses when resolving cases like this. The "outer" sentence, which contains the verb, is "The oath he swore (verb) just fluff to him", and so the correct verb is "was". But the subordinate clause uses a plural (the "words" that make up the oath), so it looks funny to write "was" immediately after.

I am aware that I can rewrite the sentence to avoid this problem. My question isn't about how to write it. My question is: does English grammar have any rules about verb number in such phrases (including, possibly, "don't do it because you cannot win")?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

1 answer

+1
−0

The general rule I learned is to ignore subordinate clauses when resolving cases like this. The "outer" sentence, which contains the verb, is "The oath he swore (verb) just fluff to him", and so the correct verb is "was".

That is correct, "was" is the grammatically correct choice in your example sentence. Basically, you should be able to delete the nonrestrictive clause and the sentence should remain grammatically correct.

My question is: does English grammar have any rules about verb number in such phrases (including, possibly, "don't do it because you cannot win")?

While some might recommend not creating this sort of construction, there's no actual grammar rule against having differing plurality between the primary and subordinate clauses. It just probably won't sound natural.


But the subordinate clause uses a plural (the "words" that make up the oath), so it looks funny to write "was" immediately after.

I am aware that I can rewrite the sentence to avoid this problem. My question isn't about how to write it.

Even though your question isn't about it, I'll answer it anyway. Grammatically correct does not always mean natural. That's why many writers suggest that you read your work out loud and rework awkward sentences. If it sounds off to you, you should rewrite it to sound more natural rather than worrying about grammar.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

General comments (2 comments)

Sign up to answer this question »