Was or were in this case

[Dodolina]

Hello,

A part of my job responsibilities is to proofread reports and make spelling and grammar corrections to them. Recently I was questioned about a correction I made. The sentence read as follows: "There was hair and residue on the chair". I corrected it to "There were hair and residue on the chair" and was told by two people that I'm wrong. Since English is my second language I just wanted to check with you if I'm right or wrong.
Thank you for your time and input!

 

[riquecohen]

I would say that your use of were is correct. Hair and residue are two things, therefore the plural should be used. Informally, in the present tense, we do hear there's used before plural nouns.

 

[bhaisahab]

I disagree with riquecohen (which is rare), I would use "was" in this situation.

 

[minnieuk]

I would agree with bhaisahab and use 'was' in this instance. Generally the verb form should match the item it is adjacent to - 'hair' is an uncountable noun so treated as singular for these purposes, thus 'There was hair and residue' is correct.

 

[5jj]

I disagree with riquecohen (which is rare), I would use "was" in this situation.

I half disagree with bhai (which is rare). Actually, I would not speak of 'residue' on a chair, but, assuming I did, I would use 'were'; however, I would not consider 'was' to be incorrect.

I don't think minnieuk has a completely valid point. I would say only 'There were a pen and a pencil on the chair'.

 

[White Hat]

"was" sounds so right due to the fact that "hair" and "residue" are both uncountable.
Compare:
There was milk and yogurt in the fridge.
If we use "were" here, it's going to be as though Milk and Yogurt are some fictional cartoon characters: There were Milk and Yogurt.

 

[5jj]

"was" sounds so right due to the fact that "hair" and "residue" are both uncountable.
Compare:
There was milk and yogurt in the fridge.
If we use "were" here, it's going to be as though Milk and Yogurt are some fictional cartoon characters: There were Milk and Yogurt.

Well, no. Some of us native speakers do use 'were' in such cases.

 

[Dodolina]

This is a fun discussion

If we were to reverse the wording of the sentence and say 'Hair and residue was noted on the chair' - doesn't that sound so wrong???

'Hair and residue were noted on the chair' sounds so much better.

 

[5jj]

This is a fun discussion

If we were to reverse the wording of the sentence and say 'Hair and residue was noted on the chair' - doesn't that sound so wrong???

'Hair and residue were noted on the chair' sounds so much better.

I agree.

 

[TheParser]

This is a fun discussion

If we were to reverse the wording of the sentence and say 'Hair and residue was noted on the chair' - doesn't that sound so wrong???

'Hair and residue were noted on the chair' sounds so much better.

ATTENTION: NOT A TEACHER

(1) Professor Rodney Huddleston, a scholar at the University of Queensland, wrote a

book entitled Introduction to the Grammar of English (1993 edition). Of course, I

cannot understand it, but I did find this gem:

The good professor says that we say "A bottle of wine and a silver goblet were on

the table," but he claims that only "There was a bottle of wine and a silver goblet

on the table" is correct. I am not intelligent to understand his book, but I hereby

note his words: the normal rules of subject-verb agreement do not apply to the

there construction: person-number inflection in the verb is shared between

there (which is 3rd person singular, like it) and the NP [noun phrase] following

the VP [verb phrase].

It appears that the good professor is one of those experts who feel that "there" in

such constructions is something like a pronoun, such as it.

(2) I do not know whether this "rule" applies to your sentence, but many books

tell us to consider two words as a unit if they are closely linked:

There is ham and eggs on the menu this morning; There is free room and board

available for a one lucky scholar.

(3) I think that many native speakers would have the "feeling" that "hair and

residue" is a unit.



If there were a poll, quite possibly a majority of native speakers might feel

more comfortable with "There was hair and residue on the chair." The use of

"were" seems to draw too much attention to the word "were" itself!

 

[5jj]

[...]

The good professor says that we say "A bottle of wine and a silver goblet were on the table," but he claims that only "There was a bottle of wine and a silver goblet on the table" is correct. I am not intelligent to understand his book, but I hereby note his words: the normal rules of subject-verb agreement do not apply to the there construction: person-number inflection in the verb is shared between there (which is 3rd person singular, like it) and the NP [noun phrase] followingthe VP [verb phrase].

I seem to be in a minority here, but I stick to my opinion. I think that when the two words are both uncountable, 'there was' is fine - but so is 'there were'. When we have two singular countable nouns, as in the example above, then I feel that 'there were' is more natural.

(2) I do not know whether this "rule" applies to your sentence, but many books tell us to consider two words as a unit if they are closely linked:

There is ham and eggs on the menu this morning; There is free room and board available for a one lucky scholar.

(3) I think that many native speakers would have the "feeling" that "hair and residue" is a unit. !

'Hair and residue' does not grab me as a closely linked pair in the way that 'ham and eggs', 'room and board' and 'fish and chips' do.

By the way, what exactly is mean by residue here?

 

[5jj]

Well, I am not alone: The 3rd edition of Sir Ernest Gowers.s The Complete Plain Words (1987, Penguin) says clearly (p.131):

“It is a common slip to write there is or there was where a plural subject requires there are or there were.

There was available one large room and three small ones.”

On the other hand, Sinclair et al, on the subject of ‘there’, write:

“Usually a plural form of ‘be’ is used if the noun group after it is plural.

There were two men in the room

You use a singular form of ‘be when you are giving a list of items and the the first noun in the list is singular or uncountable.

There was a sofa and two chairs.”

Sinclair, John (Editor-in-Chief), (1990.416) Collins Cobuild English Grammar, London: HarperCollins


Hey Ho - You pays your money and you takes your choice.

 

[Dodolina]

You guys are great! We don't know exactly what 'the residue' was as 'they" have been told to describe things like toothpaste, peanut butter, hair gel, etc. as residue. There could have been a number of things. Hair and residue are linked together by the fact that both make the chair dirty and unpleasant to use; however, they are not typically found together in a sentence like 'ham and eggs'. I have to say that I'm still confused, but it makes me feel better that so many other people are unsure as well. I would love to know what the final verdict is on this and as soon as find some time I will further research the topic, but for now I feel that I did not make an unreasonable correction and I will not reverse it.

 

[White Hat]

If we add the word "some", "was" is almost irrefutably the better choice here:
There was some hair and residue on the chair.

A possible workaround is adding words like "pieces" and "traces":
There were pieces of hair and traces of residue on the chair.

 

[White Hat]

I've found online this statement by a supposedly native English teacher:

"My bread and butter is teaching English.
When the compound subject is treated or considered as a unit, use a singular verb. When it is treated otherwise, both the plural and singular is okay.

There was chocolate and (there was) flour on the floor.
There were chocolate and flour on the ... (two substances).
There was(-->proximity rule)/were a ball and two rackets."

 

[riquecohen]

Hey Ho - You pays your money and you takes your choice.

I have to say that I'm still confused, but it makes me feel better that so many other people are unsure as well. I would love to know what the final verdict is on this and as soon as find some time I will further research the topic, but for now I feel that I did not make an unreasonable correction and I will not reverse it. Good for you.

Although your thread elicited responses from many knowledgeable people, you can see that the only "final verdict" is the one that fivjedjon has given us above. Welcome to the forum. I hope you continue to post questions here.

 

[5jj]

If we add the word "some", "was" is almost irrefutably the better choice here:
There was some hair and residue on the chair.

To you, perhaps; not to me.

I have said that I accept that 'was' is fine. I do wish that people would stop trying to say that 'was' is the only, or the best, possibility.

So far in this thread, two English teachers, both native speakers, and one well-known authority prefer 'were'. Three English teachers, two of them native speakers, and two well-known authorities prefer 'was'.

It seems reasonably clear to me (and, it appears, to riquecohen) that both are possible. It's a matter of individual choice.

 

[rafay512]

Judging from what I've read, uncountable nouns (connected with and) are treated as plural if they come before was/were e.g
"Milk and yogurt were in the fridge"
but if they come after them, they'll be treated as singular e.g
"There was milk and yogurt in the fridge" so
"There was hair and residue on the chair" sounds fine to me just like "Hair and residue were noted on the chair"
but this is based on my observation, I'm not sure about it, hope it helps.