# Grammar Check: Was/Were **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 30, 2010, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-check-was-were/555582 "2010-09-30T07:52:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Strain\_of\_Thought](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3be4f8/32.png) [@Strain\_of\_Thought](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strain_of_Thought)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-check-was-were/555582/1 "2010-09-30T07:52:17Z")
I wrote this: > [@](#): > > Certainly the most disturbing part of the process were the internal negotiations regarding how deep to dig. But now that I look at it it’s kinda suspicious. I’m wondering if I should have put: “Certainly the most disturbing part of the process **was** the internal negotiations regarding how deep to dig.” What’s the correct thing to do and why? ---
**Author:** ![Jeff\_Lichtman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeff_lichtman/32/1531_2.png) [@Jeff\_Lichtman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jeff_Lichtman)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-check-was-were/555582/2 "2010-09-30T08:08:41Z")
The problem is that the subject is singular and the object is plural, and the verb can’t agree with both. One solution is to change “negotiations” to something singular, such as “negotiation,” “debate” or “haggling”: “Certainly the most disturbing part of the process was the internal debate regarding how deep to dig.” ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-check-was-were/555582/3 "2010-09-30T08:18:13Z")
> [@Strain\_of\_Thought](#): > > What’s the correct thing to do and why? Grammatically, “were”. Stylistically, neither. Grammatically, the noun is plural (negotiations, not negotiation), so the verb must agree, and thus “were” is correct. Initial is just an adjective and has no effect on construction. “..was the internal negotiation” would be correct, but never “…were the initial negotiation”. You can usually self-check these constructions by simplifying the sentence structure: “The negotiations were difficult” cf “The negotiations was difficult”. Stylistically it’s a mess because you start out referring to the difficulty of a singular subject (part), but then you describe the same event as a plural object (negotiations). That is why it looks odd and doesn’t scan. Change it to either “the most disturbing parts of the process were the internal negotiations regarding how deep to dig” or “the most disturbing stage of the process was the internal negotiation process regarding how deep to dig”. Keep the subject and all references to the subject either singular or plural. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-check-was-were/555582/4 "2010-09-30T08:34:08Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Grammatically, the noun is plural (negotiations, not negotiation), so the verb must agree, and thus “were” is correct. Initial is just an adjective and has no effect on construction. Sure, “negotations” is a noun in the sentence. But why do you say “negotiations” is the grammatical subject and not “part”? (Rather, why do you say “the internal negotiations regarding how deep to dig” is the subject and not “the most disturbing part of the process”? But “negotations” and “part” are the points of interest) ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-check-was-were/555582/5 "2010-09-30T08:49:25Z")
> [@Jeff\_Lichtman](#): > > The problem is that the subject is singular and the object is plural./… Actually there is no object–it’s a predicate nominative. An yes, “part” is the “subject,” but more importantly, it’s the _ **topic** _ of this particular sentence. So even though it’s a predicate nominative construction, you want the topic to take prominence, and it’s better to have the copula agree with that. You want to focus attention to the thing that was most disturbing, because it was so disturbing. We use grammar; we don’t have to let it use us. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-check-was-were/555582/6 "2010-09-30T08:52:09Z")
“the most disturbing part of the process” is the subject and is singular, and the verb should agree with the subject. “Negotiations” (plural) can be “a part” of a process. Having the number of the subject and direct object disagree is perfectly acceptable, per se. “Robinson’s four hits during today’s game were an example of hitting for the cycle.” “The three hurricanes this season were a severe blow to the tourism industry.” “My grades this semester were a disaster.” If this sentence grates on you then you can simply drop the “s” on “negotiations” and I don’t think you lose meaning. ETA: On review of **guizot’s** post, I readily admit my knowledge of grammar is not as technical as that analysis, but I think we are heading to the same conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-check-was-were/555582/7 "2010-09-30T08:58:45Z")
Well, you learn something new every day. Here is the [top Google result](http://www.grammaruntied.com/nouns/PredicateN.html) for “predicate nominative,” and the second example happens to be one where the number of the subject and the predicate nominative do not agree. ---
**Author:** ![Strain\_of\_Thought](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3be4f8/32.png) [@Strain\_of\_Thought](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strain_of_Thought)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-check-was-were/555582/8 "2010-09-30T09:10:09Z")
Wow, guys. Thank you all so much for this outpouring of verbiage. Before posting this I didn’t have any idea what a “predicate nominative” was, (still need to look it up) and I expected somebody was going to just come back with a concise “do it this way of course”; apparently I should have given my intuitive grasp of grammar more credit when it got stymied. What’s really funny is, after **Indistinguishable** ’s post, I went back and looked at my paragraph and the very next sentence did the exact same thing: > [@](#): > > It was dark, the shovel was rusty and blunt, and the medium of the evening’s work was a prime section of rocky, rooty, hard-packed Georgia red clay. ---
**Author:** ![dzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@dzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dzero)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-check-was-were/555582/9 "2010-09-30T09:36:33Z")
Let’s do subjunctive mood next. EVERYBODY screws that up - so much so that it’s becoming archaic. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-check-was-were/555582/10 "2010-09-30T10:44:31Z")
Well as long as the passive voice is not done. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-check-was-were/555582/11 "2010-09-30T10:51:33Z")
> [@dzero](#): > > Let’s do subjunctive mood next. EVERYBODY screws that up - so much so that it’s becoming archaic. So you move that the subjunctive be our next topic of discussion? ---
**Author:** ![alindallas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f17d59/32.png) [@alindallas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alindallas)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-check-was-were/555582/12 "2010-09-30T11:10:22Z")
“Part” is the subject. Predicate must be “was”. Remember: even rocket science isn’t rocket science. =) ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-check-was-were/555582/13 "2010-09-30T11:18:56Z")
Or past participles with forms different than their simple past. Born before 1980? You use them consistently. (E.g., “I had run”). Born after 1980? Not so much. (“I had ran.”) ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-check-was-were/555582/14 "2010-09-30T12:35:26Z")
> [@dzero](#): > > Let’s do subjunctive mood next. EVERYBODY screws that up - so much so that it’s becoming archaic. If it were, what would we use instead? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-check-was-were/555582/15 "2010-09-30T13:31:06Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > > [@dzero](#): > > > > Let’s do subjunctive mood next. EVERYBODY screws that up - so much so that it’s becoming archaic. > > If it were, what would we use instead? I find that the present subjunctive, if it be used at all, is the most often dropped. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-check-was-were/555582/16 "2010-09-30T13:46:43Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > > [@dzero](#): > > > > Let’s do subjunctive mood next. EVERYBODY screws that up - so much so that it’s becoming archaic. > > If it were, what would we use instead? If it were, we would say “If it was …”. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-check-was-were/555582/17 "2010-09-30T13:59:58Z")
To me, it depends on whether there was more than 1 negotiation regarding how deep to dig the well. If there was only 1, then the sentecne should read: > [@](#): > > Certainly the most disturbing part of the process was the internal negotiation regarding how deep to dig. If there was more than 1 negotiation, then the sentence shoudl read: > [@](#): > > Certainly the most disturbing part of the process was the series of internal negotiations regarding how deep to dig. Either way, the verb should be singular (was) since the subject is singular (part). But if there was only 1 negotiation, you don’t pluralize the word. If there was more than 1 negotiation, and no one in particular was the most disturbing part of the process - then it is less than optimal to say “negotiations” for the one part. It’s like a square peg in a round hole. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-check-was-were/555582/18 "2010-09-30T14:21:04Z")
The negotiations were part of the process, and part of the process was the negotiations. I am the cleverest person I know, and the cleverest person that I know is me. The verb is governed by the subject, not by the predicate. ---
**Author:** ![Strain\_of\_Thought](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3be4f8/32.png) [@Strain\_of\_Thought](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strain_of_Thought)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-check-was-were/555582/19 "2010-09-30T14:30:56Z")
Well dang, **Darth Panda** , now you got me wondering if I even used “negotiations” right. I admit it’s a bit flowery but I’ve always liked the word and it seemed like a good description of my internal mental dialogue; there were several different ill-informed-upon concerns I found myself comparing the importance of while I was out there (depth as mentioned before, impending decay, scavengers, miasma), and it was late and there was time pressure for us to be finished with the task. Too late now anyway, I’ve already posted it. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-check-was-were/555582/20 "2010-09-30T14:33:45Z")
This type of construction usually comes about from words being dropped that are necessary from a technical, semantic point of view (but not a usage/grammar point of view). We drop words all the time, such as in: Who stole the cookie from the cookie jar? Me! The respondent doesn’t usually repeat the phrase that he’s responding to. He’s dropping the phrase “The person that stole the cookie was…” There’s also “My wife is the best!” which makes a lot more sense (technically) if it’s phrased “My wife is the best wife!” In your sentence, the word that’s being dropped in a second “part”. You could (should?) say: “Certainly the most disturbing part of the process was THE PART WITH the internal negotiations regarding how deep to dig.” So my advice to you for when you come across a mixed singular/plural construction is to find the missing words. Figure out what you’ve naturally dropped from the sentence and see if adding it back in makes any sense.