- For Teachers
I was reading an article on Barack Obama's passive attitude towards gun control. I understand the gist of the artcle but there was one sentense that didn't grammatically make sense to me.
Two years of silence suggest Obama feels hemmed in by the zeal of the gun lobby, whose aversion to any Second Amendment limitations are widely thought to have backfired on Bill Clinton and Al Gore.
In the second half, I believe "whose aversion" is the subjest and "are" the verb of the sentense but it appears to me that the verb should be "is" because the subject is singular.
Or is there anything I'm missing...??
Any help would be appreciated.
Last edited by Kengo; 19-Apr-2011 at 09:23.
"The gun lobby (a group of people who like guns) are..."
I agree with The Parser's response. I imagine that this is not a quote from a US newspaper.
Thank you all for your responses.
I'm glad that everyone agrees that the verb should be "is" rather than "are".
However I asked my American friend this question yesterday and he said:
Look at the phrase "aversion to any Second Amendment limitationS". That's plural. It is implying that there was more than one proposed limitation, each had one or more aversions.
I did not find this quite convingcing but maybe there's some connotation that only native speakers can grasp..??
It would be great to hear more advice and opinions.
Last edited by charliedeut; 20-Apr-2011 at 10:20. Reason: typo, and yet another one
Here's a link to the actual article.
Why Obama's Silence on Gun-Control Laws Pleases Nobody - TIME
There appears to be some sllight confusion here, though the right answer is there.
You were right in your original post - I believe "whose aversion" is the subject and "are" the verb of the sentence but it appears to me that the verb should be "is" because the subject is singular", as charliedeut confirmed in post #2, parser in post #4 and riquecohen in post #5. Your friend (post #6) made the same mistake as the writer of the original writer.
The "aversion" is in general and not a reaction to any particular proposed limitation. There is a never-ending series of proposed limitations.It is implying that there was more than one proposed limitation, each had one or more aversions.
"Aversion" makes it sound like some sort of emotional reaction, when the political opposition to gun control is based on a principle.