4

The correlation was higher when the angles that were formed between two variables were narrower.

Can we use "to be" 3x times the above sentence?

  • 1
    There's nothing wrong with your sentence. Why do you think it's should not be possible? – Peter Mar 1 '16 at 6:52
  • It would be a bit picky, but I would call 3x times redundant, and use either 3x or 3 times. – user3169 Mar 1 '16 at 16:54
3

Your example is OK, but you could break up the repetition by leaving out the second were:

The correlation was higher when the angles formed between two variables were narrower.

| improve this answer | |
1

The issue is not really about the number of verbs per sentence, but the number of verbs per clause. Here, you have three clauses of various kinds, and three forms of be, one in each clause, so the answer is 'yes' (although you can omit the second one).

The main clause is: 'The correlation was higher ...'

The second (or third) is: 'when the angles ... were narrower'

The third (or second) is: '[that were] formed between two variables ...'

It is often possible to omit the relative pronoun (that) and the verb be in relative clauses like the one you have.

| improve this answer | |
0

The sentence is correct in it's grammatical sense.

Can we use "to be" 3x times the above sentence?

I didn't understand why you want to use to be 3x times in the sentence.

If you're asking whether one can use multiple forms/tenses of words (were and was) in a single sentence multiple times, then Yes, you can so long as the sentence is making grammatical sense.

| 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.