[Grammar] Much of the state's lands were formed

[kadioguy]

Louisiana

[...]

Much of the state's lands were formed from sediment washed down the Mississippi River, leaving enormous deltas and vast areas of coastal marsh and swamp.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana
---
1. Why is "were" used, rather than "was"? I think that's because "much" is short while "the state's lands" is long, so the verb goes with "the state's lands". Is that right?

2. What does the red text modify? "Much of the state's lands", "sediment", or "the Mississippi River" ? I'll bet on the first. :-?

 

[slevlife]

1. "Were" is used because "lands" is plural here. It would be equally valid to say "Much of the state's land was formed from...".

2. The process of the Mississippi River washing sediment downstream is what left deltas behind. So all of your choices are wrong. But if I had to pick one of your choices, I'd say the Mississippi River is what left the deltas.

 

[kadioguy]

1. "Were" is used because "lands" is plural here. It would be equally valid to say "Much of the state's land was formed from...".

But I think that in "Much of the state's lands", "much" (uncountable) is the subject, hence "was". (As in "one of the books is missing.")

[Updated]

A friend told me:

a. Much of the state's land was formed.

b. Much of the state's lands were formed.

The second actually works, but "much" for a plural thing is informal. So in formal writing you'd still very much expect to see "many of them were" as the only correct option instead of "much of them".

I replied: So "much" here is countable, meaning "many". Right?

Friend: Yes, it has the same meaning.

2. The process of the Mississippi River washing sediment downstream is what left deltas behind. [...]

How about this?

Sediment was washed down the Mississippi River and it (the sediment) left enormous deltas and vast areas of coastal marsh and swamp. Much of the state's lands were therefore formed.

So I would now say " ... leaving enormous deltas and vast areas of coastal marsh and swamp" modifies "sediment".

 

[tedmc]

kadioguy
I agree with you on No.1. The use of "much" makes the subject uncountable even though "lands" implies countability, so "was" is appropriate.

I also agree with you on No.2 about "the sediment" as subject being modified, based of the rule of proximity.

 

[slevlife]

But I think that in "Much of the state's lands", "much" (uncountable) is the subject, hence "was". (As in "one of the books is missing.")

[Updated]

A friend told me:

a. Much of the state's land was formed.

b. Much of the state's lands were formed.

The second actually works, but "much" for a plural thing is informal. So in formal writing you'd still very much expect to see "many of them were" as the only correct option instead of "much of them".

I replied: So "much" here is countable, meaning "many". Right?

Friend: Yes, it has the same meaning.

Your friend is partly correct, but I have two points: First, using "much" this way is not informal, and second, "many of them were" is not a helpful comparison because that is a standard/straightforward case with nothing unusual about it.

The reason "much of the state's lands were" is unusual is because "land" can be both countable and uncountable. If you're referring to some land somewhere (or all of the state's land) you would use "land" and it would be uncountable. But "lands" is used to refer to specific land areas or types, so "the state's lands" is countable.

So then, you are probably wondering why the sentence uses "much," which is typically used with uncountable nouns. That's because here it means much of each/many of the lands (countable) that are being referred to. There are many individual "muches" being combined into a larger "much." So when choosing the verb (were), you base it on the fact that "lands" is plural/countable. Earlier, I didn't say that "much" is plural/countable in this sentence because I thought that would be confusing, but in fact it is plural/countable.

Here's a similar example: "Much of the cheeses were...". "Cheese" is uncountable, but "cheeses" refers to multiple types of cheese and it is countable. However, unlike the "state's lands" sentence, my example here is contrived and confusing, so it would be much, much better to rewrite it as something like this: "Large portions of each of the cheeses were...". Indeed, "portions" is the subject, and in this construction it's much clearer that "portions" is plural/countable.

Also note that your two sentences (a and b) actually have subtly different meanings, because the meanings of "land" and "lands" are different.

How about this?

Sediment was washed down the Mississippi River and it (the sediment) left enormous deltas and vast areas of coastal marsh and swamp. Much of the state's lands were therefore formed.

So I would now say " ... leaving enormous deltas and vast areas of coastal marsh and swamp" modifies "sediment".

I disagree. The noun "sediment" and verb "left" don't work together, because the sediment doesn't leave something behind on its own. So in this context the verb "left" can refer to the river or the process, as I mentioned earlier. For your new sentence you would ideally change the verb to something like "formed into."

 

[kadioguy]

2. The process of the Mississippi River washing sediment downstream is what left deltas behind.

I would like to revise the original text in Wikipedia as follows:

Much of the state's lands were formed from sediment washed down the Mississippi River, the process (washing sediment down) leaving enormous deltas and vast areas of coastal marsh and swamp.

Is it clearer and better to understand?

By the way, I think that it is possible to add "the" before "sediment". Is that right?

 

[kadioguy]

Much of the state's lands were formed from sediment washed down the Mississippi River, leaving enormous deltas and vast areas of coastal marsh and swamp.

Maybe grammatically "leaving" applies to "was formed". I don't know. This is a hard one. :-?

 

[slevlife]

Is it clearer and better to understand?

No. The original sentence on Wikipedia is already clear and well-enough written. Your modification makes it stilted.

Changes to make the construction easier to understand for non-native speakers would be appropriate on the Simple English Wikipedia, but not on the main Wikipedia site.

A possible change to slightly improve the readability is as follows:

Much of the state's lands were formed from sediment washed down the Mississippi River. This process left enormous deltas and vast areas of coastal marsh and swamp in its wake.

However, this and other potential modifications are not important, in my opinion.

Maybe grammatically "leaving" applies to "was formed".

I think you're overanalyzing the connection of the clauses before and after the comma. They are not well connected as written, but that's not presenting a significant problem.

 

[kadioguy]

Much of the state's lands were formed from sediment washed down the Mississippi River, leaving enormous deltas and vast areas of coastal marsh and swamp.

If you don't mind, one last question:

Is it optional to add "the" before "sediment"?

 

[slevlife]

Technically, yes, adding "the" before "sendiment" is totally fine on its own. But with this specific sentence, given that the second clause is already not connected super clearly to the first part, I would avoid "the" because it puts more focus on "sediment," which further strains the connection between the clauses since the second clause is not directly tied to the sediment (as previously discussed).

 

[Tarheel]

Say:

Is it clearer and easier to understand?

(I think you figured it out about the sediment.)