[Grammar] Agreement of subject and predicate

[constantinusphilo]

Here is a sentence from Dwight Swaine's manual Creating Characters

She was a writer of what in the trade were known as "docs" -pseudo-sociological paperbacks that pretended to be scholarly and factual and that bore titles like
Aggression, Repression and Rape, Secretaries and Sex, and The Lesbian Housewife-that kind of thing.

I think it would be more correct to write 'of what in the trade was known as "docs".

 

[GoesStation]

It wouldn't.

 

[teechar]

"Docs" (probably derived from something like "documentaries") is plural, so you need the plural verb "were".

 

[TheParser]

I think it would be more correct to write 'of what in the trade was known as "docs".

NOT A TEACHER

When I read your post, I was immediately reminded of a book that some people consider to be overly strict regarding the rules.

The author claims that the following sentences are correct: "What to watch for is such things as dry, sandy layers of hardpan"; "What Jane is clutching to her bosom is four kittens"; "What they saw was the white sand cliffs"; and "What these gentlemen need is some new moral values."

According to him, the problem is that "what" can mean "that which" or "those which."


Wilson Follett, Modern American English (1980 edition), page 233.

 

[Tdol]

We're talking about docs, not the trade.

 

[Phaedrus]

Here is a sentence from Dwight Swaine's manual Creating Characters

She was a writer of what in the trade were known as "docs" -pseudo-sociological paperbacks that pretended to be scholarly and factual and that bore titles like
Aggression, Repression and Rape, Secretaries and Sex, and The Lesbian Housewife-that kind of thing.

I think it would be more correct to write 'of what in the trade was known as "docs".

To me, "what in the trade were known as 'docs'" is more natural, by far, than "what in the trade was known as 'docs'."

From a transformational perspective, the plural makes a good deal of sense:

1. Within the "what"-clause, "what" functions as a noun phrase (NP) that is the subject of "were known as 'docs.'"

2. "NP were known as 'docs'" is in the passive voice.

3. The corresponding active-voice construction is "[subject] knew NP as 'docs'"; for example, "People knew NP as 'docs.'"

4. We would NOT use a singular NP in "People in the trade knew NP as 'docs'": e.g., *"[strike]People in the trade knew it as 'docs.'[/strike]"

Compare: *[strike]People in the trade knew him as managers.[/strike]

Therefore,

5. The direct-object NP is plural in that construction, and remains plural when promoted to subject in the passive.