# but who is to say what is a good reason? OR ... what a good reason is?



## audiolaik

Hello,

I've found the following sentence in a CPE book:

_Wars can be justified if they are fought for good reasons, but who is to say *what is a good reason?

*_Would it be gramatically correct to write _...*what a good reason is?

*_Thanks for your help?


----------



## Janey UK

Well grammar purists would say no, because your version ends with a preposition, and sounds a little clunky to boot. The original is much more elegant.

Having said that, your version would be widely used by many native speakers...


----------



## KHS

audiolaik said:


> Hello,
> 
> I've found the following sentence in a CPE book:
> 
> _Wars can be justified if they are fought for good reasons, but who is to say *what is a good reason?*_
> 
> Would it be gramatically correct to write _...*what a good reason is?*_
> 
> Thanks for your help?


 
Yes, this is the most common word order for a noun clause.  

The contributor which said it ended in a preposition was mistaken - 'is' is a verb...and the whole preposition issue is quite debatable anyway


----------



## audiolaik

_Elegant_ means more correct, so to say? 

I've been taught to use indirect speech in such examples;   however, the author of the sentence uses direct speech.

Help!


----------



## Loob

I'm sure there are relevant previous threads, audio, but I'm having trouble tracking them down

EDIT: Found one of the threads I was thinking of: it's on "what's the matter", but at least some of the discussion can be read more broadly.  It also has links to previous "what's the matter/what the matter is" threads.


----------



## audiolaik

So am I, Loob


----------



## KHS

Here's a related thread:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=285421&highlight=noun+clause+word+order


----------



## audiolaik

Now, all I need to do is to 'digest' all this information before I hit the sack!

Thank you!!!


----------



## Janey UK

KHS said:


> The contributor which said it ended in a preposition was mistaken - 'is' is a verb...and the whole preposition issue is quite debatable anyway



Oops sorry..I'm hopeless at grammar! I should keep my opinions to myself if I'm not sure!


----------



## KHS

Janey UK said:


> Oops sorry..I'm hopeless at grammar! I should keep my opinions to myself if I'm not sure!


 
don't worry - sometimes I use a linguistics term that I *used* to know but clearly forgot a bit about...I think I'm being sophisticated and then I turn out to just be WRONG.


----------



## xebonyx

I think what's recommended by grammarians is to avoid ending with verbs and prep. if possible. But as mentioned earlier, many natives would accept the alternate construction.


----------



## KHS

Lots of noun clauses end in verbs:

Please tell me where the post office is.
Do you know which brand I should buy?

There are many websites out there with the rules; here's the first one I came across:
http://faculty.deanza.edu/flemingjohn/stories/storyReader$23


----------



## xebonyx

KHS said:


> Lots of noun clauses end in verbs:
> 
> Please tell me where the post office is.
> Do you know which brand I should buy?
> 
> There are many websites out there with the rules; here's the first one I came across:
> http://faculty.deanza.edu/flemingjohn/stories/storyReader$23



Ah. Thanks KHS.  I was recalling these "recommendations" from memory.


----------



## Janey UK

KHS said:


> Lots of noun clauses end in verbs:
> 
> Please tell me where the post office is.
> Do you know which brand I should buy?
> 
> There are many websites out there with the rules; here's the first one I came across:
> http://faculty.deanza.edu/flemingjohn/stories/storyReader$23



But one can also often (but not always!) reword them, at least in colloquial conversation.

Does anyone know where the post office is? 
Does anyone know where's the post office?  Sounds a bit clunky, but is used occasionally
Where's the post office?  Very casual, but sounds completely natural.

Help! Where's the nearest Accident and Emergency department?!


----------



## KHS

Janey UK said:


> But one can also often (but not always!) reword them, at least in colloquial conversation.
> 
> Does anyone know where the post office is?
> Does anyone know where's the post office?  Sounds a bit clunky, but is used occasionally
> Where's the post office?  Very casual, but sounds completely natural.
> 
> Help! Where's the nearest Accident and Emergency department?!


 
Where's the post office? = a question

Does anyone know [[ where the post office is ]] = a noun clause acting as the direct object of 'know'

Noun clauses follow different sorts of word order patterns than questions.


----------



## Forero

audiolaik said:


> Hello,
> 
> I've found the following sentence in a CPE book:
> 
> _Wars can be justified if they are fought for good reasons, but who is to say *what is a good reason?
> 
> *_Would it be gramatically correct to write _...*what a good reason is?
> 
> *_Thanks for your help?


It would be correct grammar, but the meaning does not fit.

An example of what is a good reason:
Ending genocide is a good reason.

An example of what a good reason is:
A good reason is a reason that stands up to scrutiny.

What is a good reason = something that constitutes a good reason.
What a good reason is = the meaning of nature of a good reason.


----------



## iskndarbey

I disagree with forero; I think the meaning of that sentence is perfectly clear regardless of the word order. In response to the side issue of ending sentences with verbs or prepositions, it wouldn't surprise me if grammarians also frown upon ending sentences with nouns, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns and interjections. They tend to enjoy coming up with meaningless rules that no native speaker has ever followed.


----------



## LV4-26

I think Forero already said this in other words -- if so, I apologize in advance, hoping my post will shed a different, complementary kind of light.

Both are correct, because each says something different.

_Who is to say what a good reason is?
_
is related to the following statement ==>
A good reason is XX.

"XX" refers to a potential good reason and functions as a *subjective complement*.

_Who is to say what is a good reason?_
is related to ===>
XX is a good reason.

It's perfectly correct, even to purists, no less so than any sentence in which the question word is *the subject.*

_I asked him who cooked the cake.
I know who broke the vase_.

I prefer "_what is a good reason"_. It's more natural and straightforward, closer to what is really meant and, as I hope I managed to demonstrate, equally correct.


----------



## audiolaik

LV4-26 said:


> _I asked him who cooked the cake.
> I know who broke the vase_.



As far as subject questions are concerned, it goes without saying that the examples you provide are correct - I cannot think of any other word order in the examples above. However, the question that is being discussed is how to deal with, let's say, object questions. Are you trying to say that, for instance 
_
What time is it_? could be transformed into _He asked what time was it._


----------



## LV4-26

audiolaik said:


> Are you trying to say that, for instance
> _
> What time is it_? could be transformed into _He asked what time was it._


Certainly not.  

I'm going to think it over and see if I can be clearer.

Note, however, that this new sentence includes the deictic (I think that's what it's called)  "it", which complicates the issue.

EDIT: Let's try with another example. Say, you're asking questions about a theatre troupe.
Who could play the main part in the play? Who is a good actor? ==>
I asked him who was a good actor. 
I asked him who a good actor was. 

I think those examples are similar, except that, in your first sample sentence, both options are more or less OK -- though I insist I have a strong preference for the original -- whereas only one is acceptable here.

Forero already said this better than I can.
...what is a good reason ... ==> trying to name a good reason...
...what a good reason is ==> trying to find a definition for the phrase "good reason".


----------



## Forero

Thank you, LV4-26.

This issue is like a Neckar cube.  Once a person sees it a particular way, it is unnatural to see it the other way.  It may take several people saying it in different ways to get past the resistance to "changing gears".

My post #21 in this thread explains the general rule for word order in indirect questions.

A verb does not come before its subject in an indirect question in English.  So in "what is a good reason" as a noun phrase (indirect question), the subject must be "what", not "a good reason".


----------



## audiolaik

Give me some time to run through your post(s)! I'll let you know whether I understand it or not!


----------



## audiolaik

After pouring over your invaluable input and picking the brains of my ex-grammar teacher, I've arrived at the following conclusion. It is the verb _to be _that gives us the two possibilities, for example

a) If he came here what would your reaction be?
b) If he came here what would be  your reaction?

What's more, I've learnt that sentence *b* tends to go towards an exclamation.
Finally, sentence _*a* _sounds more natural than *b*_.

_Hmmm....what' your opinion?


----------



## Janey UK

To my ears sentence A definitely sounds more natural than sentence B.


----------



## audiolaik

Thanks for your quick reply. 
What about the verb _to be_ theory?


----------



## Janey UK

Hmmm, I'm not a grammarian so I'm loath to offer an opinion that would probably be wrong! . However, it certainly seemed like a sound theory to me...but I'd wait for the opinion of someone better qualified than I!


----------



## Forero

It is probably most confusing with "be", but "become" and "play" can do it too:

Who is to say what the president will become?
Who is to say who will become the president?

Does anyone know who played Julius Caesar?
Does anyone know who DiCaprio played?

In a direct _who_ or _what_ question, the _who_ or _what_ comes first and a verb gets ahead of its subject.

In an indirect question, the _who_ or _what_ comes first, but a verb does not get ahead of its subject.


----------



## audiolaik

I think I'm beginning to get the hang of it!


----------



## Forero

audiolaik said:


> After pouring over your invaluable input and picking the brains of my ex-grammar teacher, I've arrived at the following conclusion. It is the verb _to be _that gives us the two possibilities, for example
> 
> a) If he came here what would your reaction be?
> b) If he came here what would be  your reaction?
> 
> What's more, I've learnt that sentence *b* tends to go towards an exclamation.
> Finally, sentence _*a* _sounds more natural than *b*_.
> 
> _Hmmm....what' your opinion?


There is no indirect question in these two examples, and there is no exclamation.  These are direct questions, and the underlying statements are:

a) Your reaction would be ___ if he came here.  [Fill in the complement.]
b) ___ would be your reaction if he came here. [Fill in the subject.]

Because _your reaction_ (usually meaning the reaction you would have) is rather definite, the meanings of a and b are almost the same.  A possible difference is that a is calling for either a noun (shock, surprise, etc.) or an adjective (mild, extreme, etc.) but b is probably calling only for a noun, not an adjective.  On the other hand, both a and b could mean the same thing except for emphasis.  In b, there is more emphasis on _what_, almost as if it were _whatever_.

You could make these questions indirect:

a) I don't know what your reaction would be if he came here.
b) I don't know what would be your reaction if he came here.

Still not much difference except for emphasis.


----------



## audiolaik

Every theory I manage to build comes in for criticism! It's not on!!! 

I'm joking!!! *I do appreciate your help!!!*

I will simply accept the fact that both versions are possible and acceptable.  

Thank you!!!


----------



## audiolaik

I've just come across the following examples in the  same grammar book:

_How soon they'll operate on you depends on what your condition is.
The board was unable to agree on who was the best person for the job.

_Anyway, thanks for trying to help me!!!


----------



## Janey UK

audiolaik said:


> I've just come across the following examples in the  same grammar book:
> 
> _How soon they'll operate on you depends on what your condition is.
> The board was unable to agree on who was the best person for the job.
> 
> _Anyway, thanks for trying to help me!!!



I guess this is just one of those areas when you'll need to listen carefully to native speakers, and just try to attune your ears to the way the sentences ought to sound. 

I don't think a native speaker would ever say, for example:
How soon they'll operate on you depends on what is your condition.
The board was unable to agree on who the best person for the job was.

Those examples simply sound jarring to a native speaker. Maybe if you hang around native speakers for long enough you'll find yourself developing the 'ear' to determine which construction to use. 

Good luck!


----------



## audiolaik

Janey UK said:


> Those examples simply sound jarring to a native speaker. Maybe if you hang around native speakers for long enough you'll find yourself developing the 'ear' to determine which construction to use.




I think you're right!

Thanks!!!


----------



## Loob

audiolaik said:


> I've just come across the following examples in the same grammar book:
> 
> _How soon they'll operate on you depends on what your condition is._
> _The board was unable to agree on who was the best person for the job._
> 
> Anyway, thanks for trying to help me!!!


 
Do you want to have a go at explaining them, audio?

I must admit, I'd have been totally at a loss to explain the second one grammatically had I not been listening extremely carefully to that exceedingly wise Mr Forero...

In the first one, I think "what your condition is" is the only option.
Your condition may be serious, it may be grave, it may be stable: but "your condition" is normally (always?) going to be the subject of "is" and therefore come before it in the subordinate clause. 

In the second one, I think there are two options. One treats "the best person for the job" as the subject of "is" and therefore puts it first in the subordinate clause (underlying statement: _The best person for the job is X). _The other treats "the best person for the job" as the complement of "is" and therefore puts it second in the subordinate clause (underlying statement: _X is the best person for the job). _In your book, they chose the second option. 

As to why, possibly just because it sounds better: in 
_The board was unable to agree on who the best person for the job was_
it feels as if we're waiting a long time for the one-word verb at the end of the sentence.

But in a longer sentence such as 
_The board was unable to agree on who the best person for the job was, given Mrs Loob's people skills and Mr Audiolaik's excellent qualifications_
it seems to me that a different choice could have been made (though personally I still prefer "who was the best person...").

At least this is only an issue with copular verbs. With "proper" verbs with objects instead of complements, there isn't a problem!


----------



## audiolaik

Loob said:


> Do you want to have a go at explaining them, audio?



Hmmm....I wouldn't dare!

Thanks!

p.s. One day I will manage to grasp the idea


----------



## out2lnch

Funny, _The board was unable to agree on who the best person for the job was _sounds perfectly fine to me, and is how I would write it. The alternative arrangement is what jars me. Not sure why that is, but it seems opposite of most others here.


----------



## Janey UK

out2lnch said:


> Funny, _The board was unable to agree on who the best person for the job was _sounds perfectly fine to me, and is how I would write it. The alternative arrangement is what jars me. Not sure why that is, but it seems opposite of most others here.



No, I'm definitely with Loob on this one...this sentence only sounds OK to my ears if it's part of a longer sentence:
_The board was unable to agree on who the best person for the job was, given that they had six outstanding candidates including two Nobel laureates._ 

As a stand alone sentence, I much prefer to write/speak it this way:
_The board was unable to agree on who was the best person for the job.
_


----------



## audiolaik

Hello,

This seems to be my last-ditch attempt to get the hang of it!

What about the following sentence:

_No matter what the time *is*, ring me when you arrive at the station.

_Would you, native speakers, change the word order:

_No matter what __*is*__ the time , ring me when you arrive at the station.

_Thanks!


----------



## Loob

No, I wouldn't, audio.

Is that the answer you were hoping for?


----------



## audiolaik

Loob said:


> No, I wouldn't, audio.
> Is that the answer you were hoping for?



Yes!!! I'm regainig confidence in my English language skills!


----------



## LV4-26

I agree with Loob and, following my posts #18 and #20, I thought of some sort of test to which you could submit your sentences.


1a. No matter if the time is XX or YY 
1b. No matter if XX is the time... 

 ==> _No matter what the time is_ is therefore better.

_No matter what is the time_ (corresponding to 1b.)
is marginally possible but, to me, would suggest you don't know what the word "time" means and, seeing things written like "16°F",  "60 mph", "2,5 kms", or "17:13",  you'd wonder which one is actually expressing the time. Weird, I know,.Which explains why it would hardly occur to anyone that this option can be possible.

Conversely,
2a. Who is to say if XX is a good reason... 
2b. Who is to say if a good reason is XX 

 ==> _Who is to say what is a good reason?_ is more appropriate.


3a. I want to know if XX is a good actor
3b. I want to know if a good actor  is XX

==> Two possibilities with two different meanings (and two different pronouns)
I want to know who is a good actor
I want to know what a good actor is

Of course, it would take many more examples to make sure it always works.


----------



## audiolaik

Hello,

I've been poring over this mind-boggling problem for donkey's years, so to say. However, it was yesterday when I was preparing myself for a lesson on reported speech. I was flickering through a course book* when suddenly a short passage caught my eye:

_With what/who/which questions + be + complement, 'be' can go before the complement:_

_'Which is your bus?' She wanted to know which was our bus/which our bus was_

Simple, isn't it?

I think I've seen the light although I may be wrong, again!

(Source: Advanced Expert CAE, Longman)


----------



## Loob

Yes, but...

"Our bus" is a complement in _She wanted to know which was our bus._

It's a subject in _She wanted to know which our bus was_

_Greetings, audio, from a slightly swaying cruise ship somewhere in the Bay of Biscay...._


----------



## audiolaik

audiolaik said:


> Hello,
> I think I've seen the light although I may be wrong, again!



The light's just gone out...



Loob said:


> Yes, but...
> 
> "Our bus" is a complement in _She wanted to know which was our bus._
> 
> It's a subject in _She wanted to know which our bus was_
> 
> _Greetings, audio, from a slightly swaying cruise ship somewhere in the Bay of Biscay...._



Thank you, Loob, for bringing me back down to earth! 
I'll be back with a new theory soon!

PS Enjoy your cruise! Greetings from rainy Poland!


----------

