0

On this page : NYPD Officer Peter Liang found guilty of manslaughter in stairwell shooting that killed Akai Gurley, around 3rd screen in the middle, we have this sentence

Meanwhile, supporters of Liang, who is Chinese-American, have said he has been made a scapegoat for past injustices.

"supporterS" vs "who IS" vs "HAVE said"?

What I guess is here considers "supporters" as a whole, like "a people" means a certain group of people, am I right?

Even if yes, I still think this is too subtle for me, would you please give me another example so that I can will have an idea when to use this kind of structure?

Also, how will the meaning change if I replace "is" with "are"?

2
  • 3
    "who is Chinese-American" complements Liang, not supporters; hence the singular inflection. The subject of "have said" is supporters, hence the plural inflection. If you replaced "is" with "are", "who are Chinese-American" would complement supporters. – Yay Feb 14 '16 at 13:00
  • oh... yes, I overlooked it. Just a follow-up question I think suitable to ask here: If I do want to modify the "supporters", in this situation, how should I place the clause? – shenkwen Feb 14 '16 at 13:03
1

You misunderstood which part of the sentence went with who.

supporters of Liang, who is Chinese-American,

The "who is" is agreeing with "Liang", who is a single person, and not with the "supporters".

I'd admit that the sentence is a bit ambiguous.

For the best clarity, the description of Liang or the supporters as Chinese Americans should be moved to a different sentence entirely.

Liang, who is Chinese-American,

and then continue on.

Also, to get a little off track, mentioning the race of a person when it is not relevant invokes a bit of a racist mood and point of view.

Your Answer

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