singular Vs plural in "one of the" construct

[chitrangada.maitra]

Thanks for pitching in, Ajay!

I am getting stuck at his part of your explanation:

Second, we move to "after the Berlin Wall had been demolished", which is a dependent clause. Had been demolished requires another event in the past that happened after demolition, but such an event is not here anymore. Note that main clause is present perfect action which is continued in the present.

Doesn't the acclimatization of east germans count has another event that follows the destruction of the wall? Going by that logic, shouldn't we use past perfect tense for destruction of the Berlin wall?

[ajay.iitr]

There is no such evidence. The last part is a modifier that modifies East Germans. It will not determine main clause tense. The important point is that start from main clause while considering other events. "Since 1989" in my opinion hands down makes main clause to be present perfect and then everything else falls to appropriate tense sequence.

[tim]

thanks for your explanations, Ajay. Chitrangada, it sounds like you need to review the rules for past perfect in our strategy guide..

[joindk]

HI All,

Although this post is quite old, I have one question:

I agree that it has to use participle form but between choices D and E which one is correct?

D: has been
E: have been

I mean to say: one of the groups..... has been OR one of the groups....have been??

Thanks

[jnelson0612]

HI All,

Although this post is quite old, I have one question:

I agree that it has to use participle form but between choices D and E which one is correct?

D: has been
E: have been

I mean to say: one of the groups..... has been OR one of the groups....have been??

Thanks

This is a subject verb agreement issue. "ONE of the groups HAS been . . . ." The word "one" is singular so it needs to match with the singular verb "has" rather than the plural verb "have".

[sw001]

Are we selecting the answer option with the [u]"has been"[/u] form because the non underlined part of the prompt has "have had" form?

The answer explanation says [u]'This choice uses the singular "has been," which is also in the present perfect tense, indicating the ongoing nature of the problem'.
[/u]
How do we know the problem is still ongoing?

Thanks for providing this info as I was thinking "has been" should be present instead of "was". The usage of "Since" indicates an ongoing action..
Since childhood, I have enjoyed this game. (from childhood - till now)
Since 1989, they have been living there. (from 1989 - till now)

[RonPurewal]

Do you have any further questions?

[sw001]

Your middle sentence has a different structure. Here's the core of each:

1) One of the ethnic groups was (main subj=one, main verb=was)

2) A higher interest rate is only one of the factors that keep (main subj=rate, main verb=was. THEN "one of the factors that keep" is a subordinate clause - the "that" indicates a noun modifier, so it refers to the noun right before it - "factors")

3) One of the students was (main subj = one, main verb = was)

So the question is what noun to match with what verb. In a sentence in which you have a straight "one of the noun verb," one is going to match with that verb. In a sentence in which you have "noun verb one of the noun THAT verb" the verb is going to go with the noun immediately preceding the word "that."

After reading stacey's explanation -

Will this be correct usage then?
Tom is the only one of the students who takes notes.

Wouldn't "who" modify "students" here? Because "who" is a noun modifier and should modify the noun preceding it.

OR "WHO" can modify the clause preceding it - in that case is it "one of the students" OR "Tom is the only one of the students".

Tom is one of the students who take notes. - How do I determine take/takes between the two - based on what the noun modifier "who" is modifying?

[tim]

Once "of the students" modifies "one", the new phrase becomes "one of the students", and the "who" phrase can modify THAT. This is what the touch rule is all about. If a modifier touches a noun, you can think of the noun+modifier as the new noun, and any modifier that touches that is still okay. This is how you can string several modifiers together in a row.

Note that if there had been a comma in front of "who", then the "who" would have to modify the CLOSEST possible noun (which would have made the sentence incorrect).

[sw001]

Once "of the students" modifies "one", the new phrase becomes "one of the students", and the "who" phrase can modify THAT. This is what the touch rule is all about. If a modifier touches a noun, you can think of the noun+modifier as the new noun, and any modifier that touches that is still okay. This is how you can string several modifiers together in a row.

Note that if there had been a comma in front of "who", then the "who" would have to modify the CLOSEST possible noun (which would have made the sentence incorrect).

My confusion arose with the "Emily Dickinson's letter" example from OG. However, in that example the phrase followed by which modifies letter - without any ambiguity.

In this case is it correct to say that - since "who's" antecedent becomes ambiguous - who can only refer to "students".
Tom is the only one of the students, who take notes.
Tom is one of the students, who take notes.

And if "who" would refer to the whole noun phrase - it would be incorrect.

Tom is the only one of the students, who takes notes.
Tom is one of the students, who takes notes.

[tim]

This is not about ambiguity; it is about comma placement. Please read my post again.