0

Please note that I'm not a native speaker.

Take this sentence:

Even if there would have been sufficient eggs — which there wasn’t — he would need other stuff sooner or later.

Is the wording "which there wasn't" grammatically correct and would a native speaker understand that, in fact, there were not sufficient eggs?

|improve this question

migrated from english.stackexchange.com Sep 14 '16 at 21:56

This question came from our site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts.

  • 4
    Should be "which there weren't" - eggs is plural - you caught that yourself in your last sentence: "Is the wording "which there wasn't" grammatically correct and would a native speaker understand that, in fact, there were not sufficient eggs? :-) – Kristina Lopez Sep 14 '16 at 17:19
  • "Sufficient eggs" is not quite idiomatic. A native speaker would be likely to say "enough eggs". Your parenthetic "which there wasn't|weren't" is redundant, since "Even if" already conveys the meaning that there were not enough eggs. Sufficient and stuff are in somewhat different registers. – Tᴚoɯɐuo Sep 15 '16 at 11:13
  • 1
    It is also possible to understand "which" as referring back to the existential statement not to the noun "eggs" in particular, and thus the singular "wasn't" would be acceptable. – Tᴚoɯɐuo Sep 15 '16 at 11:16
  • 1
    The redundancy isn't a problem, though. It adds emphasis. – snailcar♦ Sep 19 '16 at 1:07
2

I think a native speaker would understand, but it is gramatically correct to say "which there weren't".

I think this is because you can count eggs and say that eggs "were" or "weren't". Substitute in a mass noun like milk, then you should say that milk "was" or "wasn't".

|improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.