I never realized how much rich culture and heritage there was/were

[kadioguy]

[An excerpt from an ariticle]

--
1. I think that "there" should be put before "were". That is, "I never realized how much rich culture and heritage there were ..."

2. Moreover, a friend told me that it should be "I never realized how much rich culture and heritage there was ..." since in this sentence culture and heritage can be taken as being addressed separately.

So,
a. I never realized how much rich culture and heritage there were ...
b. I never realized how much rich culture and heritage there was ...

What do you think?

 

[5jj]

I think the sentence is possible as it is.

 

[kadioguy]

I think the sentence is possible as it is.

Do you meant it is possible to say "I never realized how much rich culture and heritage were there ..."?

So all of the following are possible?

a. I never realized how much rich culture and heritage there were ...
b. I never realized how much rich culture and heritage there was ...

c. I never realized how much rich culture and heritage were there ...
b. I never realized how much rich culture and heritage was there ...

 

[kadioguy]

So all of the following are possible?

a. I never realized how much rich culture and heritage there were ...
b. I never realized how much rich culture and heritage there was ...

c. I never realized how much rich culture and heritage were there ...
b. I never realized how much rich culture and heritage was there ...

A friend told me, "You can use either (a) or (b), but in that sentence ‘was’ sounds better, because we're considering ‘rich culture and heritage’ as a single unit.”

He added, “So ‘rich culture and heritage’ can take either singular or plural forms depending on how we're viewing them. E.g.
‘Rich culture and heritage is a vital part of our identity.’
‘Rich culture and heritage are both important factors.’ ”

I agree with him. However, any comments are welcome.

 

[jutfrank]

I agree with your friend.

I presume c and d are wrong. The writer apparently meant to use a 'there-be' structure.

 

[Glizdka]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't like much in these sentences. I'd remove it.

"I never realized how rich culture and hetritage were there."

 

[emsr2d2]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't like much in these sentences. I'd remove it.

"I never realized how rich culture and hetritage were there."

That doesn't make any sense. It needs "how much" because it's referring to the amount of culture and heritage.

 

[Glizdka]

That doesn't make any sense. It needs "how much" because it's referring to the amount of culture and heritage.

Oh, I didn't think of it this way. I thought "...how rich culture and (how rich) heritage were there" was the idea here.

Now that you've said it, much makes perfect sense.

Are you sure my sentence doesn't make any sense? Perhaps adding the definite article would fix it.

"I never realized how rich the culture and heritage were there."

 

[Ostap]

It's probably just me but I think "were there" is correct in the sentence, and "there were" would not fit.

It's not a matter of the existence of "culture and heritage" at some place/time, but their characteristics.

I didn't realize how much gold there was. (existence)
I didn't realize how (much) pure the gold was there. (characteristic)

EDIT: as suggested above, in the second sentence there should be an article:

 

[kadioguy]

It's probably just me but I think "were there" is correct in the sentence, and "there were" would not fit.

[...}

I didn't realize how much gold there was. (existence)
I didn't realize how (much) pure the gold was there. (characteristic)

EDIT: as suggested above, in the second sentence there should be an article:

So the following wouldn't work without "the", right?

c. I never realized how much rich culture and heritage were there ...

d. I never realized how much rich culture and heritage was there ...

PS In post #3 the second (b) should be (d).

 

[Ostap]

So the following wouldn't work without "the", right?

c. I never realized how much rich culture and heritage were there ...

d. I never realized how much rich culture and heritage was there ...

I'm not sure. My "gold" example sounds quite specific. But with abstract nouns such as "culture and heritage" it may be different. Because you probably could say either:
Culture and art in Japan are...
The culture and art in Japan are...

 

[emsr2d2]

"I never realized how rich the culture and heritage were there."

That is a grammatical sentence.

 

[jutfrank]

I presume c and d are wrong. The writer apparently meant to use a 'there-be' structure.

I'm only now seeing the original context (it didn't show up before) and I'm confident that the writer did actually mean to say what they said, so I'll take back my comment quoted above.

The word there is locative, not existential, and was could be used instead of were if rich culture and heritage is considered as a singular thing.

 

[kadioguy]

I presume c and d are wrong. The writer apparently meant to use a 'there-be' structure.
[...] I'll take my comment quoted above.
The word there is locative, not existential, and was could be used instead of were if rich culture and heritage is considered as a singular thing.

Did you mean to say "The word there is existential, not locative ..."? Because I think that a and b are that case.

a. I never realized how much rich culture and heritage there were ...
b. I never realized how much rich culture and heritage there was ...

 

[5jj]

t

[An excerpt from an ariticle]

In that original sentence. 'there' is locative, It means roughly 'in those islands'.

 

[kadioguy]

In that original sentence. 'there' is locative, It means roughly 'in those islands'.

a. I never realized how much rich culture and heritage there were ...
b. I never realized how much rich culture and heritage there was ...

c. I never realized how much rich culture and heritage were there ...
b. I never realized how much rich culture and heritage was there ...

The original sentence is (c).

I presume c and d are wrong. The writer apparently meant to use a 'there-be' structure.

But why did jutfrank in post #13 say "I'll take my comment quoted above"? Didn't that mean he still thought that c and d are wrong?

 

[jutfrank]

Did you mean to say "The word there is existential, not locative ..."?

No. In post #5, I guessed, like you, that it was existential (and therefore an error) but now I see the full context I think it was indeed meant to be locative.

 

[kadioguy]

No. In post #5, I guessed, like you, that it was existential (and therefore an error) but now I see the full context I think it was indeed meant to be locative.

If you don't mind, could you please help with the question in post #16?

[Update]
Okay, I see you've changed it to "take back".