Grammar: Was or Were?

• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Mar 30, 2014 6:48 PM GMT

  Why does "was" sound better in these sample sentences? Or at least in the second example. Which is correct?
  
  1.
  What he lacked was test subjects.
  What he lacked were test subjects.
  
  2.
  Fifty participants was a very good start.
  Fifty participants were a very good start.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Mar 30, 2014 6:58 PM GMT

  In sentence 1, was refers back to the singular subject "he." "He was"
  In the second sentence, "participants" is plural. "Participants were"
  
  

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• SuntoryTime
  
  Posts: 656
  
  
  Mar 30, 2014 7:03 PM GMT

  I usually get who and that mixed up.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Mar 30, 2014 7:09 PM GMT

  Anomalous1 saidIn sentence 1, was refers back to the singular subject "he." "He was"
  In the second sentence, "participants" is plural. "Participants were"
  
  

  
  
  But can't it also be this?
  
  1. Test subjects were what he lacked.
  
  2. A very good start was fifty participants.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Mar 30, 2014 7:10 PM GMT

  This sort of thing literally makes my head explode

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Mar 30, 2014 7:12 PM GMT

  woodsmen saidHere is the answers. In the first sentence, turn the sentence around to get the answer: The test subjects WERE what he lacked. In the second sentence, the plural form should be used.

  
  
  But you wouldn't say for #2,
  
  A million dollars were a very good start.
  A million dollars was a very good start sounds better.
  
  

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• creature
  
  Posts: 5197
  
  
  Mar 30, 2014 7:16 PM GMT

  Edited. never mind.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Mar 30, 2014 7:47 PM GMT

  wrestlervic saidWhy does "was" sound better in these sample sentences? Or at least in the second example. Which is correct?
  
  1.
  What he lacked was test subjects.
  What he lacked were test subjects.
  
  2.
  Fifty participants was a very good start.
  Fifty participants were a very good start.

  
  If the schools did sentence diagrams you'd be able to more easily understand.
  
  1. Your sentence refers to the plural subjects so you use the plural of were. He is a pronoun describing the verb lacked.
  
  2. Fifty participants is a singular reference to the group no individual 'participants' therefore the singular use of was is used to identify the start. If you were referring to all the participants then you use were. IE: Fifty participants were very young.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Mar 30, 2014 7:48 PM GMT

  It's the "a good start" that makes me think "was" sounds better, as if "a good start" is its own slangish entity, sorta.
  
  Well, I'll be, fifty participants is a very good start!
  Well, I'll be, fifty participants was a very good start! (past)
  
  You wouldn't say:
  
  "Well, I'll be, fifty participants were a very good start!"
  

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Mar 30, 2014 7:53 PM GMT

  eb925guy said

  wrestlervic saidWhy does "was" sound better in these sample sentences? Or at least in the second example. Which is correct?
  
  1.
  What he lacked was test subjects.
  What he lacked were test subjects.
  
  2.
  Fifty participants was a very good start.
  Fifty participants were a very good start.

  
  If the schools did sentence diagrams you'd be able to more easily understand.
  
  1. Your sentence refers to the plural subjects so you use the plural of were. He is a pronoun describing the verb lacked.
  
  2. Fifty participants is a singular reference to the group no individual 'participants' therefore the singular use of was is used to identify the start. If you were referring to all the participants then you use were. IE: Fifty participants were very young.

  
  
  This sounds like what my mind was trying to tell me. So I'm going with--
  
  1. were
  2. was

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Mar 30, 2014 8:08 PM GMT

  Ohno saidThis sort of thing literally makes my head explode

  
  My head literally went around when I read that.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Mar 30, 2014 8:13 PM GMT

  There are people giving grammar lessons on Realjock? Well, that's dissapointing

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Mar 30, 2014 8:14 PM GMT

  Xavier92 saidThere are people giving grammar lessons on Realjock? Well, that's dissapointing

  
  Right. Let's start with spelling lessons.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Mar 30, 2014 8:16 PM GMT

  Until the expert, Sharky, turns up, I'm going for were and were.

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM
• Posted by a hidden member.
  Log in to view his profile
  
  
  Mar 30, 2014 8:27 PM GMT

  wrestlervic said

  Anomalous1 saidIn sentence 1, was refers back to the singular subject "he." "He was"
  In the second sentence, "participants" is plural. "Participants were"
  
  

  
  
  But can't it also be this?
  
  1. Test subjects were what he lacked.
  
  2. A very good start was fifty participants.

  
  
  I stand corrected.
  

  QUOTE REPORT SPAM