# concord: Every one of the students who <was, were> ...



## Akasaka

Hi everyone,
I need your help.

Every one of the students who *____ *here yesterday can speak English.

Which is the right word for the blank, "was" or "were"? My guess is "were" but it seems to me both are correct. This is such a tricky question. 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Akasaka

Hi difficult cuss,
Thanks for helping me. So if I use "was" here, is it very wrong? I mean if you proofread my writing, and find "was", is it a very obvious mistake? I get the feeling that even native speakers may use "was" here.


----------



## panjandrum

It is a strange sentence.
Why Every one of the students ... ?
Why not, "Every student who was here yesterday could speak English."

Never mind, the question would be less interesting.
Every one of the students who were here yesterday could speak English.
I'll add, for fun,
Every one of the students who were here yesterday was wearing a wig.


----------



## Lora44

Do you know, I would cheat. I'd be a complete wuss and say 'Every one of the students here yesterday can speak English'.

I've tried substituting other verbs, other tenses to try and work out which is correct and I don't know.

Actually, part of me thinks 'was' might be correct because:

Every one of the students who ____ here yesterday speak*s* English.

That use of the third person singular tells me it should be 'was' and the only reason that 'was' sounds wrong is because it's so close to 'students' and that's a plural noun.


----------



## mgarizona

Seems quite clear to me:

Every student was.
One student was.
Every one was.


----------



## panjandrum

Every one of the students who *____ *here yesterday can speak English.


I guess, not being a grammar-nerd, that this sentence was deliberately constructed as part of a test.  I think the clause <who ____ here yesterday> modifies "the students" and therefore requires *were*.

Every one of the students can speak English.
What students?
The students who were here yesterday.


----------



## Lora44

mgarizona said:


> Seems quite clear to me:
> 
> Every student was.
> One student was.
> Every one was.


 
Ah, when you break it down like that it seems painfully simple  it's just that pesky 'students' that makes the 'was' sound wrong.

But yes, this has my vote: 

Every one of the students who *was* here yesterday can speak English.


----------



## Lora44

panjandrum said:


> Every one of the students who *____ *here yesterday can speak English.
> 
> 
> I guess, not being a grammar-nerd, that this sentence was deliberately constructed as part of a test. I think the clause <who ____ here yesterday> modifies "the students" and therefore requires *were*.
> 
> Every one of the students can speak English.
> What students?
> The students who were here yesterday.


 
Aaaaaaargggghhhhh, English grammar is so frustrating sometimes


----------



## mgarizona

Every one of the students was.
The students were.

Those sentences have different subjects, of different number, and so take different verbs. Even if they refer to the same number of students at the same instant, they are not referring to them in the same way.


----------



## JamesM

mgarizona said:


> Every one of the students was.
> The students were.
> 
> Those sentences have different subjects, of different number, and so take different verbs. Even if they refer to the same number of students at the same instant, they are not referring to them in the same way.


 
I agree. 

"Every one of the apples I looked at was rotten."
"All the apples were rotten."

I'm not sure that it's sound advice, grammatically speaking, but as an AE native speaker that would be my personal choice.

Something that might clarify it - an intensifier for "every one" is "every single one".  "Every single one were able to speak English" would sound very odd to me.  "Every single one was able to speak English" would sound correct.


----------



## panjandrum

C'mon guys, you're avoiding the original question  

Every one of the students who *____ *here yesterday can speak English.

_was_ / _were_ ?


----------



## ireney

It depends 

For me, the logical choice is "were". "Every one, of the students who were here yesterday, can speak English " (as opposed to the total number of students, including the ones not there) .

However how about "Every one , of the students (not the teachers), who was here yesterday can speak English". 

Does this make any sense? Am I overcomplicating something relatively easy and confusing myself?

P.S. I know my commas shouldn't be where they are in the second phrase.


----------



## mgarizona

panjandrum said:


> C'mon guys, you're avoiding the original question
> 
> Every one of the students who *____ *here yesterday can speak English.
> 
> _was_ / _were_ ?


 
The only thing I had intended to avoid was typing:

Every one of the students who was here yesterday can speak (ahem, speak*s*) English.

The students who were here yesterday can speak (or simply, speak) English.


----------



## Giordano Bruno

First I tried, "Every one, of the students who were here yesterday, can speak English.  Then I tried, "Every one, of the students, who was here yesterday can speak English.
It seems to me that either/both of them is/are correct.


----------



## Lora44

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced it's_ Every one of the students who was here yesterday can speak English. _No matter how sure I feel though, there's still a niggling doubt, which tells me you probably could get away with saying either and you're not likely to be picked up on it.

However, if someone can find a definitive answer for this (if such a thing exists) it would really help me sleep tonight!


----------



## winklepicker

Akasaka said:


> Every one of the students who *____ *here yesterday can speak English.
> 
> Which is the right word for the blank, "was" or "were"? My guess is "were" but it seems to me both are correct.


 
Blimey. Into the minefield, then.

This is not about every one who was here. Every one can speak English.

It's about the students who were here. Among the students who were here, every one can speak English.

So it's a were from me. I hope I make a few converts!


----------



## mgarizona

The question isn't what the sentence is about. The question is how the sentence is stated.

It's clearer if you lose the 'can,' which is invariable.

Among the students who were here, every one speak*s* English.

If "every one" is the subject of the sentence, you need a singular verb.

One could easily write: The students who were here yesterday speak English, every one of them.

But if you make "Every one" the subject of the sentence--- and it is the subject, "of the students" is a parenthetical--- then it has to be "who *was* here."

If that sounds awkward to you, change the structure of the sentence, don't rewrite basic grammar.


----------



## l3376876

Akasaka said:


> Hi everyone,
> I need your help.
> 
> Every one of the students who *____ *here yesterday can speak English.
> 
> Which is the right word for the blank, "was" or "were"? My guess is "were" but it seems to me both are correct. This is such a tricky question.
> 
> Thanks in advance.


 
Well, I'm a grammar nerd. Let me try this: This is a question of adjectival relative clauses and their antecedents. Here, there are two possible antecedents(Every one and the students) both of which could be modified by the adjectival clause "who____here yesterday."
1. If the adjectival relative clause "who____here yesterday" is meant to modify the antecedent "Every one," then we should pick "was."
2. If the adjetival relative clause is used to modify "the students," then the anwser is "were."
This is the explanation in term of traditional grammar; yet, modern descriptive grammarians hold that we shouldn't prescribe but describe what the native speakers of a language say or write. Therefore, imo, all of you are right about what you think and write.


----------



## winklepicker

l3376876 said:


> Therefore, imo, all of you are right about what you think and write.


----------



## l3376876

Hi, winklepicker, what do the 3 smileys stand for? Enlighten me again?
Btw, did my parse help a bit?


----------



## panjandrum

mgarizona said:


> The question isn't what the sentence is about. The question is how the sentence is stated.
> 
> It's clearer if you lose the 'can,' which is invariable.
> 
> Among the students who were here, every one speak*s* English.
> 
> If "every one" is the subject of the sentence, you need a singular verb.
> 
> One could easily write: The students who were here yesterday speak English, every one of them.
> 
> But if you make "Every one" the subject of the sentence--- and it is the subject, "of the students" is a parenthetical--- then it has to be "who *was* here."
> 
> If that sounds awkward to you, change the structure of the sentence, don't rewrite basic grammar.


Thanks mgarizona.

Is this a matter of whether we consider "of the students" or "of the students who were here yesterday" to be parenthetical?

I'm working gently towards the suggestion that this is a deliberately ambiguous question that could be logically analysed to either of two opposite correct answers. And to suggest that the answer we pick is rather like the answer we give to the "What do you see in this picture?" question HERE.


----------



## winklepicker

panjandrum said:


> Thanks mgarizona.
> 
> Is this a matter of whether we consider "of the students" or "of the students who were here yesterday" to be parenthetical?
> 
> I'm working gently towards the suggestion that this is a deliberately ambiguous question that could be logically analysed to either of two opposite correct answers. And to suggest that the answer we pick is rather like the answer we give to the "What do you see in this picture?" question HERE.


 
Aha - I rather think I see what you mean. 

Among the students who were here, every one can speak English. 

*But* 

Amongst the students, every one who was here can...

A neat trick. What's the answer then?


----------



## mgarizona

panjandrum said:


> Thanks mgarizona.
> 
> Is this a matter of whether we consider "of the students" or "of the students who were here yesterday" to be parenthetical?


 
Well first off your options *assume* that there is a 'were' in there, which I reject. Plus I think you're seeing as one parenthetical what is actually two.

Every one speaks English.

Every one of the students speaks English.

Every one who was here yesterday speaks English.

Every one of the students who was here yesterday speaks English.

Does it sound awkward? Of course it does. And luckily English has a dozen or more constructions available to it with which to express the same information without that awkwardness. That is why no one would ever compose this sentence outside of a grammar quiz. So, if the only function of this sentence is to test how willing one is to let grammar wield its might, I say let the old bird fly ... and never ever use such a construction in any form, written or verbal, in real life.


----------



## Violet Green

Akasaka said:


> Hi everyone,
> I need your help.
> 
> Every one of the students who *____ *here yesterday can speak English.
> 
> Which is the right word for the blank, "was" or "were"? My guess is "were" but it seems to me both are correct. This is such a tricky question.
> 
> Thanks in advance.


 
Hi,
Here's Violet's humble opinion.

of the students who *____ *here yesterday 
is a sub-sentence. It could be left out.
But since it's there, its verb has to agree with _the students_, i.e. its verb should be plural:
of the students who were here yesterday.

"Every one can speak English" - this is the main sentence, to me. _Every one_ is singular, so the verb must be singular, which is why it could also be
"every one speaks English" but not "everyone speak English".

So the full sentence would be

"Every one of the students who werehere yesterday can speak English."


----------



## emma42

The subject of the verb is "every one...", so it has to be *was*, strictly speaking (whatever that means!).  However, as has been pointed out, many people, educated and otherwise, would use *were* because "students" is plural.  This is grammatically wrong (ooh, deep waters), but is a widespread idiom and an understandable one.  Even though I know *was *is correct, it still sounds a bit wrong because of the plural "students".

I think such constructions are in a state of change at the moment.


----------



## Lora44

Every one of us *agrees* that if the 'of the students' was not there it would be 'Every one who *was* there'. The 'of the students' doesn't change the subject, it's just because the verb is closer to the plural 'students' that *was* sounds wrong.


----------



## emma42

I know.  I thought that was what I had said!


----------



## Lora44

Lora44 said:


> Do you know, I would cheat. I'd be a complete wuss and say 'Every one of the students here yesterday can speak English'.
> 
> I've tried substituting other verbs, other tenses to try and work out which is correct and I don't know.
> 
> Actually, part of me thinks 'was' might be correct because:
> 
> Every one of the students who ____ here yesterday speak*s* English.
> 
> That use of the third person singular tells me it should be 'was' and the only reason that 'was' sounds wrong is because it's so close to 'students' and that's a plural noun.


 
So did I.  

I agree, I think both would be accepted. It wouldn't be a mistake that immediately jumped out at most people.


----------



## panjandrum

mgarizona said:


> Well first off your options *assume* that there is a 'were' in there, which I reject. Plus I think you're seeing as one parenthetical what is actually two.[...]


Ouch (don't like rejection).
I didn't assume anything.  One of my options uses was, the other uses were. 
The point I was trying to make, badly, is that both was and were are correct, but have rather different meanings - or more accurately, would be said in slightly different contexts and therefore have rather different meanings. 

Let me try again.
I am going to tell you something about my group of 79 students.
37 of my students were here yesterday, 42 were not.
Every one of the (79) students who *was *here yesterday can speak English.

Forget that and change the context.
Now I'm going to tell you about the students who were here yesterday. Wouldn't you like to know how clever they are?
Every one of the students who were here yesterday can speak English.

In the first case, *every one of* is applied to *the students.*

In the second case, *every one of* is applied to *the students who were here yesterday*.

In other words, both was and were are correct, but different.


----------



## emma42

Oh, Panj, I just don't understand what you are saying! To my mind, the context makes no difference; if the subject is "every one", then the verb must be "was".


----------



## Lora44

emma42 said:


> Oh, Gerry, I just don't understand what you are saying! To my mind, the context makes no difference; if the subject is "every one", then the verb must be "was".


 
Same, sorry.

To me, both of those sentences mean the same thing: Of all the students who were there yesterday, every one of them speaks English.

If I wanted to say that all of my 79 students were there and that all of them can speak English, then I would say:

Every one of the students, who were all there yesterday, can speak English.

In this sentence, the fact that they were all there is additional information and can be removed, so it's a relative clause, hence the commas and *were*, which relates back to 'students'.

However, if I want to say that all of the students who were there can speak English (implying that not all of my students speak English, just the ones who turned up) I would say 'Every one of the students who was there yesterday can speak English'.


----------



## mgarizona

emma42 said:


> Oh, Gerry, I just don't understand what you are saying! To my mind, the context makes no difference; if the subject is "every one", then the verb must be "was".


 
I'm glad it's not just me.

Consider this. If you have the sentence:

Every one of the students who were here yesterday speaks English.

you imply this sentence:

Every one who were here yesterday speaks English.

It's just not Jai Alai!


----------



## ireney

Can I give it a try? (or another one depends on how you see my previous, pathetic try)

Everyone (of the students who were here yesterday) speaks English (but that cannot be said for all the students).

Everyone (of the students) who was here yesterday speaks English (but there were some teachers who don't).

The parentheses are there just for clarification purposes.


----------



## MissFit

mgarizona said:


> Every one of the students who were here yesterday speaks English.
> ...
> Every one who were here yesterday speaks English.


 
In the first sentence, the phrase "who were here yesterday" refers to "students" and therefore requires the plural verb, "were" rather than was.  (The phrase "of the students" modifies the pronoun "one" which is the subject.)

In the second sentence, the phrase "of the students" is omitted.  The phrase "who were here yesterday" modifies the pronoun "one" rather than the word "students."  Therefore, it should be "who was here yesterday" (_one who was_, not _one who were_.)

I don't really think the first sentence implies the second.  There may have been other people there yesterday who did not speak English, but were not students, and are therefore not relevant to the comment.


----------



## panjandrum

emma42 said:


> Oh, Panj, I just don't understand what you are saying! To my mind, the context makes no difference; if the subject is "every one", then the verb must be "was".


Yes, but in one case the subject is 
"Every one of <the students who were there yesterday>" ... can speak English.

In the other sentence the subject is
"Every one of <the students>" ... modified by <who was there yesterday> ... can speak English.

As I said earlier, I am convinced that it is a sentence constructed deliberately to be puzzling.


----------



## emma42

Ah, I see what you mean, Gerry.  You can't just go around deciding what/who is the subject willy-nilly, my son.  "Every one" is the subject in both sentences, whether you like it or not.

Is another way of putting your first sentence, "Every one of the students (of those who were here yesterday)..."?


----------



## panjandrum

I'm not convinced at all.
It seems to me that those who strongly espouse *was* are being very selective in their choice of subject.
I, on the other hand, am open-mindedly suggesting that the context will determine whether the subject of the sentence is the student population as a whole or the specific set of students who were here yesterday.

I might helpfully add that I'm not taking any of this conversation very seriously.


----------



## JamesM

It's an interesting puzzle, to be sure.

Here's another way to phrase it.  I'm interested in seeing if it gets different results:

Every one of the apples that ____ placed on the counter had bad spots.
Every one that ____ placed on the counter had bad spots.

Are both blanks "were"? "was"? Or is one "was" and one "were"?



			
				emma42 said:
			
		

> Every one of the apples that were placed on the counter had bad spots.
> Every one that ____ placed on the counter had bad spots.


 
I take it that emma42's response would be that they are both "was".  So, "every one of the apples that _was_ placed on the counter had bad spots" sounds correct to you?


----------



## emma42

Hello, JamesM.  You have mistakenly attributed a quote to me about apples with spots!

Yes, it would be "was" in both cases.  In an earlier post I pointed out that this does sound "wrong" because of "was"'s proximity to a plural noun, but is still, in fact, correct.

I see what you are saying now, Gerry.  I still disagree.  And I think you should be deeply ashamed for not taking this too seriously.


----------



## panjandrum

mgarizona said:


> I'm glad it's not just me.
> 
> Consider this. If you have the sentence:
> 
> Every one of the students who were here yesterday speaks English.
> 
> you imply this sentence:
> 
> Every one who were here yesterday speaks English.
> 
> It's just not Jai Alai!


Sorry, mgarizona, I missed this post  

I don't think your suggested implication can be inferred from what I said.

Take an alternative view ...
If you have the sentence:
Every one of the students who was here yesterday speaks English.
you imply this sentence:
I am one of the students who was here yesterday.
and
Were you one of the students who was here yesterday?


----------



## emma42

Why does it imply that?  Why couldn't it be that "I am a member of staff who was here yesterday listening to the students" or "I am a visiting assessor who was here yesterday" or "I am a prospective student, looking around the college, who was here yesterday"?

Also, what has this got to do with the question in hand?  The subject of the verb is "Every *one"*.  "One" is the third person singular and has to have "was" in the simple past.  I know you know this, Panj, but I feel constrained to yell.


----------



## panjandrum

Every one of the students <who were here yesterday> speaks English.
<...> is a non-restrictive, descriptive clause.
It tells us more about the students we are talking about.

Every one of the students <who was here yesterday> speaks English.
<...> is a restrictive clause.
It tells us which of the students we are talking about.

Someone might tell me that, in the same way I punctuate which/that non-restrictive/restrictive clauses differently, I should punctuate who non-restrictive/restrictive clauses differently. That would make the two sentences:
Every one of the students, who were here yesterday, speaks English.
Every one of the students who was here yesterday speaks English.

Although I am normally very comma-conscious, I find it difficult to imagine using commas in this sentence.


----------



## emma42

Now I understand you.  And I feel my grammatical failings. I intend to research this tomorrow.


----------



## panjandrum

Let me talk about chairs instead of people.
We had a wedding yesterday in our house*
There was an exploding cake that blew sticky rice all over the place.

Every one of the red chairs that was in the dining room was full of rice.

Every one of the red chairs, which were in the dining room, was full of rice.

Further research would be very, very welcome.

*We didn't - for some reason that is the first example that came to mind.  Must tell #2 daughter.


----------



## emma42

Yes, commas do make things clearer.  Or we could use brackets.

I must buy a new hat.


----------



## cheshire

mgarizona said:


> I'm glad it's not just me.
> 
> Consider this. If you have the sentence:
> 
> Every one of the students who were here yesterday speaks English.
> 
> you imply this sentence:
> 
> Every one who were here yesterday speaks English.
> 
> It's* just not Jai Alai![/*quote]
> Hi. Could anyone explain what that means? It's Basque game, right?


----------



## winklepicker

panjandrum said:


> Every one of the students, who were here yesterday, speaks English.
> Every one of the students who was here yesterday speaks English.
> 
> Although I am normally very comma-conscious, I find it difficult to imagine using commas in this sentence.


 
I'm sure Panj is right about this. There is not just one potential subject, but two - as Akasaka indicated in his/her original post.

Possible subject one is of course _ONE_:

Amongst the students, every one who was here can...

Possible subject two is _THE STUDENTS_:

Amongst the students who were here, every one can speak English. 

So, as Panj says, an argument can be made (and has been made, exhaustively, right here!) for either one. Whether the person who asked the question knows this, of course, is another matter!

So, Akasaka, where did you get this entertaining question from? And what did the question-setter think the answer was? We're all on tenterhooks.


----------



## mgarizona

I can't help feeling that a sentence structure which presents two possible subjects is a faulty sentence structure, except in poetry or literary prose where polysemy is intended.

This could all be settled with some simple concision:

Every one of the students here yesterday speaks English.

Every one of the red chairs in the dining room was covered with rice.


----------



## emma42

But does anyone else agree with Panj (they may already have done - apologies if so) that we can have the "were" without commas or brackets?

Mgarizona, if we change the sentences round like that it won't be any fun!


----------



## mgarizona

emma42 said:


> Mgarizona, if we change the sentences round like that it won't be any fun!


 
Fun?  And, emma, here I am trying to wind this up SOLELY to save you from what appeared to be a looming apoplexy!


----------



## ireney

emma42 said:


> But does anyone else agree with Panj (they may already have done - apologies if so) that we can have the "were" without commas or brackets?
> 
> Mgarizona, if we change the sentences round like that it won't be any fun!



Me me!  Granted, I may be influenced by my native language in which "who" shows who you are talking about (me, you, him, them, whatever) and therefore commas are less "necessary", but I don't think they are necessary here either.


----------



## emma42

So, Ireney, you think that we can have both of Panj's interpretations without changing any of the punctuation?

Mgarizona - thank you for caring.  Apoplexy was, indeed, imminent.


----------



## ireney

Well I came to the conclusion that  both can be used  when I read the initial sentence(which has no commas) so I'd say that even without  the all-too-often despised commas both  make sense,


----------



## Dimcl

Having watched (and learned!) from this thread over the last couple of days, I finally feel compelled to jump in at the end and congratulate whomever it was that structured this sentence in the first place - an excellent "trick" question.

When I first read Akasaka's post, my first instinct was to use "were" and after having read all the "fors" and "againsts" each of "was" and "were", I'm still on the side of "were" (without the commas).

I hope Akasaka comes back and tells us what the question-composer says is the answer!


----------



## emma42

So do I!  But we really need a top-notch, grammarian.  Where is foxfirebrand? No disrespect meant to all other forer@s.


----------



## Thomsen

panjandrum said:


> Every one of the students who *____ *here yesterday can speak English.
> 
> 
> I guess, not being a grammar-nerd, that this sentence was deliberately constructed as part of a test. I think the clause <who ____ here yesterday> modifies "the students" and therefore requires *were*.
> 
> Every one of the students can speak English.
> What students?
> The students who were here yesterday.


 
It's was. Each one was here yesterday.  I sweat that took me two minutes to figure out though!  

It is confusing because it almost seemed to imply subjunctive as in "I wish you were here."


----------



## panjandrum

Thomsen said:


> It's was. Each one was here yesterday. I sweat that took me two minutes to figure out though!
> 
> It is confusing because it almost seemed to imply subjunctive as in "I wish you were here."


Please explain why was is correct and were is incorrect, with reference to the preceding posts. In the context of the discussion so far, your post is very strange indeed.

I don't think the possibility of subjunctive is at all relevant.

Edit: How do you know that each one of the students was here yesterday?  And please use every, not each, in your explanation.


----------



## Thomsen

panjandrum said:


> Please explain why was is correct and were is incorrect, with reference to the preceding posts. In the context of the discussion so far, your post is very strange indeed.
> 
> I don't think the possibility of subjunctive is at all relevant.
> 
> Edit: How do you know that each one of the students was here yesterday? And please use every, not each, in your explanation.


 
First of all, I am sorry you didn't come out on top in this discussion, however, there is no reason to be rude!  If my input is undesired, I will try to refrain from threads in which you are participating.

Second of all, I believe it is was because of reasons previously listed.  The subject of the sentence is "Every one".  "Of the students" merely clarifies the group that every one is being drawn from. Singular person requires was.  This is based on what I learned in school and of course AE usage.

Thirdly, my natural inclination is "were" and that is because it seems like a sentence where there is some unknown in which subjunctive would be required to me.


----------



## emma42

Dear Thomsen, please don't be offended.  It did look as though you hadn't read the thread!  I am sure everyone welcomes your input.


----------



## river

_Everyone_ is one word when it means _everybody_. _Every one_ is two words when the meaning is _each one_. Right?


----------



## emma42

That's how I understand it.


----------



## panjandrum

Thomsen said:


> First of all, I am sorry you didn't come out on top in this discussion, however, there is no reason to be rude! If my input is undesired, I will try to refrain from threads in which you are participating. [...].


Thomsen, I'm really disappointed, in myself, if you feel that my intention was to "come out on top". Similarly, I am disappointed that you thought I was rude. I apologise for any rudeness you may have perceived, but do take into account that your claim to have found the right answer more or less immediately does rather belittle the contributions of others.

Never mind that.
Thanks for your explanation.
I still have the same sense of puzzled curiousity about this sentence that came upon me when I read it first and I admire your certainty.


> Second of all, I believe it is was because of reasons previously listed. The subject of the sentence is "Every one". "Of the students" merely clarifies the group that every one is being drawn from. Singular person requires was. This is based on what I learned in school and of course AE usage.


Are you sure that *"of the students"* is the only possible clarification of the group from which *every one* is drawn?
My sense of ambiguity comes from the possibility that *"of the students who were here yesterday"* could be what clarifies that group. 
And so I remain open-minded.


----------



## gaer

Thomsen said:


> First of all, I am sorry you didn't come out on top in this discussion, however, there is no reason to be rude! If my input is undesired, I will try to refrain from threads in which you are participating.


If you become this upset every time someone disagrees with you or asks you for clarification, you will have to refrain from participating in most threads. 


> Second of all, I believe it is was because of reasons previously listed. The subject of the sentence is "Every one". "Of the students" merely clarifies the group that every one is being drawn from. Singular person requires was. This is based on what I learned in school and of course AE usage.


Let's look again at the original problem:

"Every one of the students who *____ *here yesterday can speak English."

Doesn't it strike you as at least unusual that there are more than 50 posts devoted to the analysis of this particular "grammar puzzle"?

As is true of at least some other people, I see two solutions:

1) Every one of *the students* who *were *here yesterday can speak English.

2) "*Every one* of the students who *was *here yesterday can speak English."

I feel that anyone who is unable to see that there is a logical reason for either solution is not only too rigid but is also missing the important point: when a sentence causes many intelligent people to stumble, the real solution is to rewrite the sentence.


> Thirdly, my natural inclination is "were" and that is because it seems like a sentence where there is some unknown in which subjunctive would be required to me.


 
I don't see anything that looks the least bit like subjunctive.  

Gaer


----------



## emma42

I do see Thomsen's point about the subjunctive; with "were" there is a momentary "feel" for me of the subjunctive, but that's as far as it goes.


----------



## JamesM

Hmmm... for the subjunctive to be present, I'd expect something like:

"Were every one of the students who ___ here yesterday able to speak English, our job would be much easier."


----------



## gaer

JamesM said:


> Hmmm... for the subjunctive to be present, I'd expect something like:
> 
> "Were every one of the students who ___ here yesterday able to speak English, our job would be much easier."


And a worse nightmare:

If _*every one*_ of the students who *was (were)* here yesterday *were* able to speak English, our job would be much easier.

By the way, regardless of what other problems we add, I would change "every one" to "all".

"Were all of the students who were here yesterday able to speak English, our job would be much easier." 

When I read the first couple of posts, I wondered what all the fuss was about. As I read more of this thread, the whole problem became more and more interesting to me.

I would call it a "Catch 22 Grammar Problem".  

Gaer


----------



## alejofcalifornia

Akasaka said:


> Hi everyone,
> I need your help.
> 
> Every one of the students who *__WAS__ *here yesterday can speak English.
> 
> Which is the right word for the blank, "was" or "were"? My guess is "were" but it seems to me both are correct. This is such a tricky question.
> 
> Thanks in advance.


----------



## alejofcalifornia

I think is was because its talking about students, but for each one


----------



## Thomsen

panjandrum said:


> Thomsen, I'm really disappointed, in myself, if you feel that my intention was to "come out on top". Similarly, I am disappointed that you thought I was rude. I apologise for any rudeness you may have perceived, but do take into account that your claim to have found the right answer more or less immediately does rather belittle the contributions of others.
> 
> Never mind that.
> Thanks for your explanation.
> I still have the same sense of puzzled curiousity about this sentence that came upon me when I read it first and I admire your certainty.
> 
> Are you sure that *"of the students"* is the only possible clarification of the group from which *every one* is drawn?
> My sense of ambiguity comes from the possibility that *"of the students who were here yesterday"* could be what clarifies that group.
> And so I remain open-minded.


 
No, I should apologize.  I understand that your comments were not meant to be critical, but rather you were asking for an explanation which is perfectly valid.  I did not mean that my answer was right!  What I meant to say was that it took me a couple of minutes to figure out which I thought was the answer.  I honestly could not decide between them myself. 

My conclusion that of the students was a clarification of group arose from the fact that it was an element of the sentence which was not necessary and therefore if taken out would leave the sentence most intelligibly to me as "Every one of the students who *was *here yesterday can speak English."

However, if the sentence had different puncutuation.  "Every one, of the students who *were* here yesterday, can speak English."  I would obviously have a different answer.  

Which I suppose may be the crux of the problem. 

Anyway, apologies again to all and I am going to stay out of this thread from now on.


----------



## winklepicker

gaer said:


> "Every one of the students who *____ *here yesterday can speak English."
> 
> Doesn't it strike you as at least unusual that there are more than 50 posts devoted to the analysis of this particular "grammar puzzle"?
> 
> As is true of at least some other people, I see two solutions:
> 
> 1) Every one of *the students* who *were *here yesterday can speak English.
> 
> 2) "*Every one* of the students who *was *here yesterday can speak English."
> 
> I feel that anyone who is unable to see that there is a logical reason for either solution is not only too rigid but is also missing the important point: when a sentence causes many intelligent people to stumble, the real solution is to rewrite the sentence.
> 
> I don't see anything that looks the least bit like subjunctive.
> 
> Gaer


 
If I may say so, that is a masterly review of the story so far. Can I suggest that nobody else posts until they have read it through at least twice?!


----------



## mgarizona

Might I ask any of the _were_-ists (or the _was_-_were_ agnostics!) to show me a sensible English sentence in which the object of a preposition (such as 'students' in 'of the students') acts as the subject of a sentence?


----------



## winklepicker

mgarizona said:


> Might I ask any of the _were_-ists (or the _was_-_were_ agnostics!) to show me a sensible English sentence in which the object of a preposition (such as 'students' in 'of the students') acts as the subject of a sentence?


 
Of the students who were here yesterday every one can speak English.


----------



## mgarizona

winklepicker said:


> Of the students who were here yesterday every one can speak English.


 
The subject of that sentence is *one*, surely every one agrees on that.

Reduce that sentence to the barest of bones and you are left with *one can*. That's basic parsing.


----------



## panjandrum

mgarizona said:


> Might I ask any of the _were_-ists (or the _was_-_were_ agnostics!) to show me a sensible English sentence in which the object of a preposition (such as 'students' in 'of the students') acts as the subject of a sentence?


I can't come up with one of those, but on the other hand I don't see where you are going? Just in case, and speaking as a playfully-agnostic was-were-ist, I don't think there is any doubt that the main verb in the topic sentence must agree with "Every one ...".

Looking back a little, some posts include the topic sentence ending in "... speaks English," rather than "... can speak English," in both variants - which illustrates that point.


----------



## Lora44

mgarizona said:


> The subject of that sentence is *one*, surely every one agrees on that.
> 
> Reduce that sentence to the barest of bones and you are left with *one can*. That's basic parsing.


 
How about if we take that idea of just simplying the sentence down to 'one of..'

I think everyone agrees that 'every one/each one' takes a singular verb as whether _was_ or _were_ is chosen, everyone agrees that 'Every one of the students who...... *speaks* English'.

So if we talk about one specific student, who for arguments sake speaks Russian and is the only student of those students there who can, our sentence would be:

One of the students who ____ here yesterday speaks Russian.

What would we say there? Should this then apply to 'every one' given that it also takes a singular verb?
I'm just throwing this in to see if it changes anyone's mind and to see if anyone has any extra thoughts on it.

I've got to say, hats off to all the people who are still persevering with this - I've tried to keep up with this thread as much as I can but at times the concepts have just made my head hurt!! If I were trying to write this sentence, I'd have given up a long time ago and just gone with 'Every one of the students here yesterday speaks English' or 'All of the students who were here yesterday speak English'.


----------



## mgarizona

Just been reading up on this on some grammar websites, which are quite obviously more up-to-date than my copy of _The King's English_ <g>.

Evidently this sort of thing is refered to as _agreement by proximity_. In a similar construct discussed on one site they say that "traditional rules require" the singular, but among their Usage Panel it breaks down 59% for the singular, 22% for the plural and 19% 'agnostic.'


----------



## Lora44

mgarizona said:


> Just been reading up on this on some grammar websites, which are quite obviously more up-to-date than my copy of _The King's English_ <g>.
> 
> Evidently this sort of thing is refered to as _agreement by proximity_. In a similar construct discussed on one site they say that "traditional rules require" the singular, but among their Usage Panel it breaks down 59% for the singular, 22% for the plural and 19% 'agnostic.'


 
Ah well done for finding something relevant, I did several Google searches and trawled through a few grammar sites and all I could find were explanation of how 'every one' takes a singular verb, which we were all in agreement about anyway! Nicely done.

I love that it turns out everyone is right, I think that's nice 


Thank you!


----------



## winklepicker

Lora44 said:


> One of the students who ____ here yesterday speaks Russian.
> 
> What would we say there? Should this then apply to 'every one' given that it also takes a singular verb?


 
I think this is useful. There is surely a different meaning between the two sentences 

Every one of the students who *were *here yesterday can speak English =
Of the students who were here yesterday every one can speak English.

Every one of the students who *was *here yesterday can speak English = 
Each student who was here yesterday can speak English.



Lora44 said:


> I've got to say, hats off to all the people who are still persevering with this - I've tried to keep up with this thread as much as I can but at times the concepts have just made my head hurt!!


 
Me too  . Must be a masochist I suppose...


----------



## emma42

Thanks for that bit of research, mgarizona.  I kept meaning to do it myself!  I am surprised that "was" won in that instance, even though it's correct to my mind.  I maintain that such "agreement by proximity" will eventually be as acceptable as "was", due to common usage.


----------



## panjandrum

mgarizona said:


> [...] 19% 'agnostic.'


WOW - as many as that.
Thanks for the stats 
I am just a little uncomfortable with this being a matter of agreement by proximity, though that is something that Fowler recognised and acknowledged as sound reason for choice in difficult situations. I still have a strong sense of the difference in meaning that winklepicker has set out above.

The suggestion of simplifying the sentence, using one rather than every one, has appeal. For more amusement, I have coloured differently the agreements that I see in these sentences.

One of <the students who were here yesterday> speaks Russian.
_There may be other students who speak Russian._
_More than one student was here yesterday._

One of <the students> who was here yesterday speaks Russian.
_There is only one student who speaks Russian._
_That student may have been the only one who was here yesterday._


----------



## mgarizona

With *one* I see it entirely differently.

In "Every one of the students who was here yesterday speaks English" you can break the *of*-subclause from the *who*-subclause grammatically:

Every one of the students speaks English.
Every one who was here yesterday speaks English.

And so they should be considered seperately.

With *one* you cannot:

One of the students speaks English.
One who ____ here yesterday speaks English *X (IMO)*

So "of the students who ____ here yesterday" has to be considered as a unit.

In that case, of course *were* is correct.


----------



## Lora44

winklepicker said:


> Every one of the students who *were *here yesterday can speak English =
> Of the students who were here yesterday every one can speak English.
> 
> Every one of the students who *was *here yesterday can speak English =
> Each student who was here yesterday can speak English.


 
Maybe I'm really slow but I don't really see a difference between the two sentences.



panjandrum said:


> One of <the students who were here yesterday> speaks Russian.
> _There may be other students who speak Russian._
> _More than one student was here yesterday._
> 
> One of <the students> who was here yesterday speaks Russian.
> _There is only one student who speaks Russian._
> _That student may have been the only one who was here yesterday._


 
I see your point with the second one, but surely if that were the case you'd say 'The student who was here yesterday speaks Russian'. I have to say I wouldn't think that they may have been the only student who was there from that and if it were me trying to put that across with my words I would say:

One of the students, the one who was here yesterday (as a way of identifying the student in question to the speaker), speaks Russian.


----------



## Lora44

mgarizona said:


> With *one* I see it entirely differently.
> 
> In "Every one of the students who was here yesterday speaks English" you can break the *of*-subclause from the *who*-subclause grammatically:
> 
> Every one of the students speaks English.
> Every one who was here yesterday speaks English.
> 
> And so they should be considered seperately.
> 
> With *one* you cannot:
> 
> One of the students speaks English.
> One who ____ here yesterday speaks English *X (IMO)*
> 
> So "of the students who ____ here yesterday" has to be considered as a unit.
> 
> In that case, of course *were* is correct.


 
I have to say, I didn't think of that with my example...

...ahhhh just when we thought we had the lid back on Pandora's box...oops! 

Grammar, don't you love it?


----------



## Giordano Bruno

My feeling is that the use of "was" requires commas to make the meaning clear, but the use of were does not.  If we change "Every" to "Only" we have the following possibilities.

Only one, of the students, who was here yesterday speaks Russion.

Only one of the students who were here yesterday speaks Russion.


----------



## JamesM

mgarizona said:
			
		

> One who ____ here yesterday speaks English *X (IMO)*




I can think of an example where this sentence would work fine, but maybe I'm missing the point.

"We've had several job applicants show up for the position we advertised. One who was here yesterday speaks English.  That's a useful skill for this position."


----------



## emma42

Giordano Bruno said:


> My feeling is that the use of "was" requires commas to make the meaning clear, but the use of were does not.  If we change "Every" to "Only" we have the following possibilities.
> 
> Only one, of the students, who was here yesterday speaks Russion.
> 
> Only one of the students who were here yesterday speaks Russion.



The commas in the first example make no sense whatsoever to me.


----------



## Giordano Bruno

Hi emma42,

They were there to indicate that there may have been people other than students who also spoke Russian. I agree that it's a bit inelegant.


----------



## emma42

Thanks for the clarification, Giordano.


----------



## mgarizona

JamesM said:


> [/color][/b]
> 
> I can think of an example where this sentence would work fine, but maybe I'm missing the point.
> 
> "We've had several job applicants show up for the position we advertised. One who was here yesterday speaks English. That's a useful skill for this position."


 
Right you are. And so, 'was' it is!


----------



## winklepicker

This one, of the posters to this thread, is losing the will to live.


----------



## emma42

Winklepicker, you, need, a, nice, cup, of, tea.


----------

