| Author |
Message |
grant
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:33 am
Post subject: Sticky subject-verb agreement issue |
|
|
"...achieves remarkable success by combining four interrelated
elements. The first is multiple career paths, which give teachers more
opportunities for increased roles and responsibilities."
Shouldn't it be "which gives teachers"? The subject is actually
"The first [element]." Multiple career paths is just the object,
and a singular one too, if we're considering it collectively as a
single element.
Am I wrong?
Thanks!
Grant
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:58 am
Post subject: Re: Sticky subject-verb agreement issue |
|
|
Grant Gottschall:
| Quote: | "...achieves remarkable success by combining four interrelated
elements. The first is multiple career paths, which give teachers more
opportunities for increased roles and responsibilities."
Shouldn't it be "which gives teachers"?
|
No.
| Quote: | The subject is actually "The first [element]."
|
That's the subject of "is", not the subject of "give".
| Quote: | Multiple career paths is just the object,
|
The object of "is" is "multiple career paths, which give teachers more
opportunities for increased roles and responsibilities." Within the
subordinate clause, the subject of "give" is "which", which is construed
as plural to agree with "paths".
It would be possible to use "gives" by rewriting the sentence so that
"which" referred to "first [element]". For example:
The first, which gives teachers more opportunities for increased roles
and responsibilities, is multiple career paths.
If you split off the subordinate clause into a new sentence or the
equivalent, you can make it work either way:
The first is multiple career paths; this gives teachers more
opportunities for increased roles and responsibilities.
(The antecedent of "this" is "the first [element]".)
The first is multiple career paths; these give teachers more
opportunities for increased roles and responsibilities.
(The antecedent of "these" is "multiple career paths".)
However, I think the plural versions are better, because basically
it's the career paths that give the opportunities; the fact that
they're an element of something else is secondary.
--
Mark Brader "It flies like a truck."
Toronto "Good. What is a truck?"
msb@vex.net -- BUCKAROO BANZAI
My text in this article is in the public domain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fred
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:26 am
Post subject: Re: Sticky subject-verb agreement issue |
|
|
"Mark Brader" <msb@vex.net> wrote in message
news:11ml914d6e3hl32@corp.supernews.com...
| Quote: | Grant Gottschall:
"...achieves remarkable success by combining four interrelated
elements. The first is multiple career paths, which give teachers more
opportunities for increased roles and responsibilities."
Shouldn't it be "which gives teachers"?
No.
The subject is actually "The first [element]."
That's the subject of "is", not the subject of "give".
Multiple career paths is just the object,
The object of "is" is "multiple career paths, which give teachers more
opportunities for increased roles and responsibilities." Within the
subordinate clause, the subject of "give" is "which", which is construed
as plural to agree with "paths".
It would be possible to use "gives" by rewriting the sentence so that
"which" referred to "first [element]". For example:
The first, which gives teachers more opportunities for increased roles
and responsibilities, is multiple career paths.
If you split off the subordinate clause into a new sentence or the
equivalent, you can make it work either way:
The first is multiple career paths; this gives teachers more
opportunities for increased roles and responsibilities.
(The antecedent of "this" is "the first [element]".)
The first is multiple career paths; these give teachers more
opportunities for increased roles and responsibilities.
(The antecedent of "these" is "multiple career paths".)
However, I think the plural versions are better, because basically
it's the career paths that give the opportunities; the fact that
they're an element of something else is secondary.
--
But I can substitue 'which give' with 'and that gives'. Alternatively I |
could substitute 'which give' with 'and they give', so isn't either correct?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:00 pm
Post subject: Re: Sticky subject-verb agreement issue |
|
|
grant <ggottschall@mff.org> wrote:
| Quote: | "...achieves remarkable success by combining four interrelated
elements. The first is multiple career paths, which give teachers more
opportunities for increased roles and responsibilities."
Shouldn't it be "which gives teachers"? The subject is actually
"The first [element]." Multiple career paths is just the object,
and a singular one too, if we're considering it collectively as a
single element.
Am I wrong?
|
Yes. You seem to have a mistaken notion about the role of "which". It
modifies the noun right before it, not the subject of the sentence.
You maybe be misled because you're dealing with the case where "A equals
B, which..." If A and B really are equivalent, then it doesn't matter
whether the "which" goes on to describe A or B. Try considering a
sentence where A and B are not equivalent.
The first capital of the United States was not Washington, DC, which
was built later. It was Philadelphia.
"Which was built later" describes Washington, DC. "It" refers back to
"the first capital."
--
Best wishes -- Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in