what there wasn’t were many people

[birdeen's call]

I found the following sentence in this article.

But what there wasn’t were many people.

Is this sentence correct? I would rather say

But what there wasn't was many people.

 

[tzfujimino]

Hello.:-D
I've never seen such a construction.
Could it be because of the word 'people' ?
It must be a tough one, since it is confusing you.

 

[birdeen's call]

Hello.:-D
I've never seen such a construction.
Could it be because of the word 'people' ?
It must be a tough one, since it is confusing you.

Hi! Yes, I think the plural noun "people" is what made the author use the plural form "were". I just think it's not correct, or at least inconsistent, since he uses the singular "wasn't" with the same subject "what" in the same sentence.

 

[SoothingDave]

I found the following sentence in this article.

But what there wasn’t were many people.

Is this sentence correct? I would rather say

But what there wasn't was many people.

But you would not say "there was many people" so your edit sounds wrong. Stick with the original.

Re-ordered: What wasn't there were many people.

 

[tzfujimino]

Hi! I just think it's not correct, or at least inconsistent, since he uses the singular "wasn't" with the same subject "what" in the same sentence.

I agree. Let's wait for other people to reply.

 

[birdeen's call]

But you would not say "there was many people" so your edit sounds wrong. Stick with the original.

I wouldn't. However, I would say

What struck me was the people shouting and cheering on the streets.

and not

What struck me were the people shouting and cheering on the streets.

Google has 1,700,000 hits for "what struck me was the people", and 13,800 for "what struck me were the people".

 

[birdeen's call]

Re-ordered: What wasn't there were many people.

This re-ordered version still doesn't convince me. I would still use the singular "was" here because I think that the verb's subject is "what wasn't there", which I think is singular in English.

 

[SoothingDave]

I agree with your "struck" examples.

This is definitely an interesting case. "Was" may very well be the "correct" answer but it sounds wrong.

 

[SoothingDave]

This re-ordered version still doesn't convince me. I would still use the singular "was" here because I think that the verb's subject is "what wasn't there", which I think is singular in English.

I think the instinct is to hear "there were many people" as a phrase.

 

[birdeen's call]

I agree with your "struck" examples.

This is definitely an interesting case. "Was" may very well be the "correct" answer but it sounds wrong.

Thank you. It doesn't sound wrong to me, but I have to agree that the original sounds better, though I have no idea why. Perhaps the double "was" doesn't sound so good? Perhaps a native speaker will try not to use it whenever possible?

 

[charliedeut]

I found the following sentence in this article.

But what there wasn’t were many people.

Is this sentence correct? I would rather say

But what there wasn't was many people.

Hi,

I think this is what happened:

The reporter is listing what he saw on the streets:

"There was so much broken glass..."; "...I saw a red and white joker’s hat..." (=there was a hat). And then he goes on to mention what there wasn't, even if this is a group (people). So since he uses "there was" more than "there were", he follows trend by stating what there wasn't: people (the only thing - singular rather than plural - that was not anywhere to be found).

Did I manage to make it clearer or more fussy? I mean, I grasp why used "there wasn't" for "people", but I find it hard to explain.

Greetings,

charliedeut

 

[birdeen's call]

Hi,

I think this is what happened:

The reporter is listing what he saw on the streets:

"There was so much broken glass..."; "...I saw a red and white joker’s hat..." (=there was a hat). And then he goes on to mention what there wasn't, even if this is a group (people). So since he uses "there was" more than "there were", he follows trend by stating what there wasn't: people (the only thing - singular rather than plural - that was not anywhere to be found).

Did I manage to make it clearer or more fussy? I mean, I grasp why used "there wasn't" for "people", but I find it hard to explain.

Hi, charliedeut.

I understand the singular "wasn't". What I don't really understand is the plural "were".

 

[charliedeut]

Hi birdeen,

To go on with what I posted before: "were" is the natural collocation with "people", as we all know.

Let me see if we can find a proper way out.
A: You know, when the match had ended, there was so much broken glass on the ground...
B: I realized. And did you see there was a red and white joker hat in a gutter?
A: Indeed. But you know what there wasn't?
B: No. What is it?
A: There weren't many people.
B: You're right! I didn't even realize!

So, if we considered what Mr. White wrote as reporting such a (fictional) conversation, would it make more sense?

Greetings,

charliedeut

 

[emsr2d2]

A: Indeed. But you know what there wasn't?
B: No. What is it?

The exchange above isn't natural. If someone said "But you know what there wasn't?", the response would be "No. What?" or "No. What wasn't there?" not "No. What is it?"

 

[5jj]

Part of the problem lies in the fact that this construction appears to be rare in recorded writing. COCA has only 10 citations for 'what there was was' and BNC only 2. One of these is followed by a plural noun. COCA has one citation for 'what there was wasn't', BNC none. Neither has anything for 'what there was were(n't)'.

Michael Swan (PEU, 22005.522) writes: In English a verb normally agrees with the subject of a sentence, not with the following complement. [...]However, if the subject is a long way from the verb, people sometimes make the subject agree with a complement.
The most interesting thing on radio and television last weekend, without any doubt, was/were the tennis championships.
This often happens, too, when the subject is a relative what-clause,, especially when the complement is long.
What I am most interested in is/are your immediate personal matters.
What we need is/are a few bright young engineers.


So, you pays your money and you takes your choice. I go for 'was'.

 

[emsr2d2]

This would have been so much simpler if he'd used "a lot of" instead of "many". I'm pretty sure none of us would be querying "What there wasn't was a lot of people"!

I'm still going with "was" for the original because both "wasn't" and "was" refer back to the "What" at the beginning of the sentence, which represents "the thing".

 

[SoothingDave]

What we need is/are a few bright young engineers.

I'd go with "are" there, too. If I didn't stop to think about it. ;-)

 

[charliedeut]

The exchange above isn't natural. If someone said "But you know what there wasn't?", the response would be "No. What?" or "No. What wasn't there?" not "No. What is it?"

Yes, of course, you are right. BIG and silly mistake on my side (Common sense 1 - Charliedeut 0)

 

[TheParser]

I would rather say

But what there wasn't was many people.

***** NOT A TEACHER ****

Hello, Birdeen's Call:


1, IF (a big "if") I understand your question, I think that the Master (aka Henry Fowler) would agree with you.

2. I do not know which edition you have of his masterpiece A Dictionary of Modern English Usage.

a. The second edition discusses this starting on page 691.

b. The third edition discusses this starting on page 839.

i. Some of the Master's fans feel that the third edition revised too much of the Master's teachings and that it is too permissive.

*****

3. I could not find any examples exactly like yours, but I believe that these following "correct" sentences from the

Master's second edition (which, I understand, faithfully followed the first edition in 1926) show the grammar that

interests you:

What is required is houses at rents that people can pay.
What is needed is a few recognized British financial corporations.
What is required is three bedrooms.

*****

4. The very strict Modern American Usage (1980 edition) is also very clear on this matter. Here are some of Mr. Wilson Follett's examples in the section of his book entitled "Number, trouble with":

What they saw was the white sand cliffs on the eastern coast.
What these gentlemen need is some new moral values.

*****

5. I end this post with this comment from the third edition, edited by Robert Burchfield, who truly had a "distinguished

lexicographical career" (as the book jacket says). Mr. Burchfield writes:


"There is an understandable tendency to let 'attraction' take its course in certain circumstances."

Perhaps that is the justification for the "were" in your quoted sentence.