[Grammar] who is/are

[Andromeda]

Dear teachers,

Please take a look at the following sentence. There is a discussion as to whether the verb in the relative clause should be "is" or "are" :

1. The moment we entertain people like the writer who are/is very quarrelsome and....

In my opinion, it should be "are" as the head noun in the noun phrase "people like the writer" is "the people", which is the antecedent of the relative pronoun "who", which should be followed by a plural verb, i.e., "are". Is my analysis correct

 

[tedmc]

I think the a singular verb is appropriate without a comma after "writer".

 

[teechar]

Andromeda, please post the full sentence.

 

[Andromeda]

Andromeda, please post the full sentence.

The full sentence is,

1. The moment we entertain people like the writer who are very quarrelsome and antagonistic, we shall be giving them more opportunities to pick holes in the system.

 

[Glizdka]

Not a teacher
------

Hello, Andromeda!

It depends on who is quarrelsome and antagonistic - the writer, or people like the writer.

This sentence can be anything without at least one more comma, in my opinion. I'd say these two are possible, and for practical reasons, mean almost the same:

1. The moment we entertain people, like the writer who is very quarrelsome and antagonistic, we shall be giving them more opportunities to pick holes in the system.
2. The moment we entertain people like the writer, who are very quarrelsome and antagonistic, we shall be giving them more opportunities to pick holes in the system.

 

[Andromeda]

Not a teacher
------

Hello, Andromeda!

It depends on who is quarrelsome and antagonistic - the writer, or people like the writer.

This sentence can be anything without at least one more comma, in my opinion. I'd say these two are possible, and for practical reasons, mean almost the same:

1. The moment we entertain people, like the writer who is very quarrelsome and antagonistic, we shall be giving them more opportunities to pick holes in the system.
2. The moment we entertain people like the writer, who are very quarrelsome and antagonistic, we shall be giving them more opportunities to pick holes in the system.

As to the second sentence, the reference is not to "all" people but to only those who are "quarrelsome" and "antagonistic". Therefore, I think, the restrictive relative clause cannot be set off with commas. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[GoesStation]

1. The moment we entertain people like the writer who are very quarrelsome and antagonistic, we shall be giving them more opportunities to pick holes in the system.

It's a poorly-written sentence. As written, "who" refers to "people" and "are" is correct. If you add a comma after "writer", who are very quarrelsome and antagonistic becomes a parenthetical clause and "are" should be "is".

Why do you think the author may have chosen the wrong verb? Is it because they wrote "pick" when they meant "poke"?

 

[Glizdka]

As to the second sentence, the reference is not to "all" people but to only those who are "quarrelsome" and "antagonistic". Therefore, I think, the restrictive relative clause cannot be set off with commas. Correct me if I am wrong.

I don't like that line of thinking. This sentence is difficult to read without punctuation that would guide the reader. I think the red commas in my post make it more readable because they show what the core sentence is, and what the parenthetical bit is.

1a. The moment we entertain people...we shall be giving them more to pick holes in the system.
1b. ...like the writer who is very quarrelsome and antagonistic...

2a. The moment we entertain people like the writer...we shall be giving them more to pick holes in the system.
2b. ...who are very quarrelsome and antagonistic...

That being said, I agree with GoesStation. This is poor writing.

 

[Andromeda]

It's a poorly-written sentence. As written, "who" refers to "people" and "are" is correct. If you add a comma after "writer", who are very quarrelsome and antagonistic becomes a parenthetical clause and "are" should be "is".

That is my point. There cannot be a comma after "writer" because what follows the noun phrase (="people like the writer") is a restrictive relative clause. "Like the writer" is a complement licensed by the head noun (="people"). Further, in the main clause, the indirect object is "them", which anaphorically refers to the head noun.

Why do you think the author may have chosen the wrong verb? Is it because they wrote "pick" when they meant "poke"?

pick holes in something [https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/hole_1#pick_idmg_18]

 

[jutfrank]

As to the second sentence, the reference is not to "all" people but to only those who are "quarrelsome" and "antagonistic". Therefore, I think, the restrictive relative clause cannot be set off with commas. Correct me if I am wrong.

Yes, that's how I interpret it too.

Did you write this sentence? If so, how is it that you don't know what you mean? If you didn't write it, where did you see it?

 

[Andromeda]

Yes, that's how I interpret it too.

Did you write this sentence? If so, how is it that you don't know what you mean? If you didn't write it, where did you see it?

It isn't my sentence. I saw it in an email. My colleague and I discussed it.

 

[Tarheel]

One more.

Bob: Have you seen John lately?
Ted: Yes, I saw him earlier today.