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"?

Improve this question
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
    Commented Feb 14, 2016 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
    Commented Feb 14, 2016 at 13:03

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
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.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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