1

Managers formerly ( ) the software engineering groups for the development project will now be in charge of much larger teams.

A. supervised
B. supervising

The answer is B, and I get it, but to me A(supervised) seems correct as well.

Managers (who) formerly supervised the software engineering groups for the development project / will now be in charge of much larger teams.

Why isn't this sentence accepted? is it because I can't omit "who" like I did in the sentence? Or does the verb has to be "(managers who) had supervised ~~"?

Can anyone explain to me why A is not allowed?

1

You can omit who and use supervised, but not without adding a pronoun and punctuation. (And possibly a conjunction.)

The reason for this is that the following is an independent clause:

✔ Managers formerly supervised the software engineering groups for the development project.

But this is not an independent clause:

✘ Will now be in charge of much larger teams.

In order for the above to make sense on its own, it needs a pronoun in front of it.

They will now be in charge of much larger teams.


Ways to join the two together include the following:

✔ Managers formerly supervised the software engineering groups for the development project, and they will now be in charge of much larger teams.

✔ Managers formerly supervised the software engineering groups for the development project; they will now be in charge of much larger teams.

✔ Managers formerly supervised the software engineering groups for the development project. They will now be in charge of much larger teams.


But since rephrasing the latter part of the sentence is not given as a possibility, you cannot omit who and use supervised:

✘ Managers formerly supervised the software engineering groups for the development project [, and they] will now be in charge of much larger teams.


With the use of supervising, neither part of the sentence is an independent clause—nor can it stand on its own. But when joined together, the entire sentence becomes a grammatical independent clause:

Managers formerly supervising the software engineering groups for the development project will now be in charge of much larger teams.

  • thanks so much, but why can't I see ("Managers formerly supervised ~") as a whole a subject? Like "Subject" will now be in charge..? You mean independent clause can't be a subject or linked with other clause? – dbwlsld Jul 15 at 1:52
  • 1
    @dbwlsld Managers formerly supervised is not a subject phrase. You can't say, for instance, [managers formerly supervised] employees ate bananas. On the other hand, [managers] (who formerly supervised employees) ate bananas is fine, – Jason Bassford Supports Monica Jul 15 at 4:32

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.