Do I use 'was' or 'were' in these 2 sentences

[Melf]

Do I use 'was' or 'were' in these 2 sentences?

1: My most recent series of events were working with....

2 : The challenge of producing these events were fulfilling an ambitious brief

If the person answering can briefly explain why as well that would be great

Thanks

 

[geordief]

Do I use 'was' or 'were' in these 2 sentences?

1: My most recent series of events were working with....

2 : The challenge of producing these events were fulfilling an ambitious brief

If the person answering can briefly explain why as well that would be great

Thanks

1: can be either "was" or "were" but the meaning of the sentence changes accordingly. (that is because "series" can be singular or plural as it ends in an "s"- you could , for example, say " "a particular series" or "more than one series")
So the "were" refers back to "series" and not to "events" even though that word ("events") lies directly before it ("were")in the sentence.

So in this case either "was" or "were" would be grammatically correct but the meaning of the sentence would change accordingly

2this is easier as "challenge" is unambiguously singular).
You must use "was" here as "was" refers to "challenge" and not to "events"

I am confident that my answer is correct I hope that made sense to you .

 

[konungursvia]

Do I use 'was' or 'were' in these 2 sentences?

1: My most recent series of events were working with....

2 : The challenge of producing these events were fulfilling an ambitious brief

If the person answering can briefly explain why as well that would be great

Thanks

Both are wrong, and require "was."

 

[geordief]

Both are wrong, and require "was."

what even if there are 3 or 4 series of events? (series can be in the plural meaning)

 

[konungursvia]

what even if there are 3 or 4 series of events? (series can be in the plural meaning)

I agree with you in part. One can say "these two series are...." but if unspecified, the reading is singular in my opinion.

 

[AnshulChauhan]

Series is always treated as a singular noun unless followed by the number or count.
Its like saying there are two cars or there is a car...

 

[5jj]

I agree with you in part. One can say "these two series are...." but if unspecified, the reading is singular in my opinion.

I think that the singular reading is more likely, but I also think it's a bit harsh to say that the plural reading is wrong. It isn't wrong; it's possible. geordief gave a sound response, in my opinion.

 

[bagzi94]

I was.
You were.
He/She/It was.

We were.
You were.
They were.

But: If I were you.

 

[AnshulChauhan]

I were you is a different case.
Were is used with singular when one wishes for something.

 

[adidasagam]

I think that we can also use were, for third person and I, in some conditional sentences.

 

[5jj]

"I were you" is a different case.
"Were" is used with a singular subject when one wishes for something.

But not on its own. We need words that show the wish or hypothetical situation:

If I were you, I wouldn't do that.
I wish I were somewhere else now.

 

[shannico]

If I were you is definitely more formal than if I was you in conditional sentences. It is also used in writing more frequently.

As for the two sentences above I reckon geordief is rights.
Series is both plural and sigular, that explains why it could take both was and were, although the meaning would change considerably.

Sentence n.2 would definitely take was as the verb refers to challenge which is the subject and is singular.

 

[konungursvia]

But not on its own. We need words that show the wish or hypothetical situation:

If I were you, I wouldn't do that.
I wish I were somewhere else now.

On Corrie they say "it were" all the time. :lol:

 

[shannico]

You are talking northern English accents which do invert was and were all the time.
"I were at the pub the other day" is fairly standard up that way.
But the context is totally different. I was talking about conditional clauses.

 

[5jj]

You are talking northern English accents which do invert was and were all the time.

They don't 'invert' was and were. Some northerners use were for all persons in informal conversation.

 

[konungursvia]

They don't 'invert' was and were. Some northerners use were for all persons in informal conversation.

Yes, and I think it's the influence of the Danes, for in Scandinavian languages, all verbs are identical in the present indicative, regardless of the person. Except my own dear Icelandic, of course.

 

[Psiconaut]

You are talking northern English accents which do invert was and were all the time.
"I were at the pub the other day" is fairly standard up that way.
But the context is totally different. I was talking about conditional clauses.

Right, I've heard that quite a lot in Manchester and I've been always thinking If I've heard wrong or what.