0

In both events, the discrepancies between accounts are many and varied. Take Luke’s burn. Everyone who was there that day either saw someone who wasn’t there, or failed to see someone who was. Dad saw Luke, and Luke saw Dad. Luke saw me, but I did not see Dad and Dad did not see me. I saw Richard and Richard saw me, but Richard did not see Dad, and neither Dad nor Luke saw Richard. What is one to make of such a carousel of contradiction? After all the turning around and round, when the music finally stops, the only person everyone can agree was actually present that day is Luke.

Educated - Tara Westover

I don't know how to analyse this sentence, just wonder if it miss a "who"? Like below:

  • the only person everyone can agree WHO was actually present that day is Luke

edited for "What is one to make of such a carousel of contradiction"

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

No, there is an omitted "who" (which English allows), but it's not where you put it.

the only person *who everyone can agree was actually present that day is Luke.

You could paraphrase it rather stiltedly as

the only person such that everyone can agree that they were actually present is Luke.

Improve this answer
4
  • wait, please I don't get it. "who everyone can agree was actually present that day.", there are 2 verbs in the clause? agree + was?
    – wtdark
    Commented Dec 27, 2021 at 16:59
  • 1
    This is because English often allows us to omit complementisers. Who everyone can agree [that they] were actually present on that day. Was is in the embedded that- clause (with omitted "that") introduced by agree. They can be omitted because who takes over its function, and who usually takes was unless there is a reason to expect it to be plural, whereas they takes were whether it is singular or plural.
    – Colin Fine
    Commented Dec 27, 2021 at 19:21
  • I'd use that rather than who anyway (...the only person that everyone can agree was actually present that day is Luke) - and hopefully most learners would already know that "that" is always "optional" in such contexts.
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Dec 27, 2021 at 19:32
  • oh, I read it wrong myself, sorry.
    – wtdark
    Commented Dec 28, 2021 at 11:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .