1

The sentence

Women driving cars is, of course, such a foreign sight to a society like Saudi Arabia

The subject is not "women" (otherwise, the verb would have been 'are'); the subject, as I mean to use it, is the rarity of seeing women driving cars. The subject, in other words, is "women driving cars" as a thing. Does this give me licence to use 'is' here? Thank you.

aparente001
  • 21,530
asef
  • 1,986
  • Yes, it does (says the non-linguist and honestly speaking ignorant native speaker). I'm hoping one of our better-equipped colleagues, here, can justify that intuitive position. – Dan Bron Mar 18 '16 at 05:00
  • Not just license, it's required. – user0721090601 Mar 18 '16 at 05:27
  • 3
    @guifa not necessarily. "Women" could be the subject, in which case "are" would be required. Analogous: Cows eating grass are generally quieter than those eating pretzels. – phoog Mar 18 '16 at 07:24
  • If you mean women's driving of cars, use is; if you mean women who drive cars, use are. – Anonym Mar 21 '16 at 01:46
  • 1
    Wow, what do you hjave to do to get a question upvoted round here? Good question +1 – Araucaria - Him Mar 22 '16 at 11:21
  • @DanBron Ah, but your an expert - because you're a native speaker. If it sounds right to you it is right! :) – Araucaria - Him Mar 22 '16 at 11:22
  • Does anyone else find it amusing that he said "give me licence" in reference to driving cars? –  Apr 12 '16 at 19:26
  • Relevant: Subject with a Gerund: "is" or "are"? – herisson Apr 12 '16 at 19:40
  • @sumelic Clause subjects take singular agreement, so if you see "Women driving cars" as a clause functioning as subject of the sentence, then singular agreement would be correct. But if you see it as an NP, then plural agreement is correct. – BillJ Apr 13 '16 at 18:30
  • Flying planes is dangerous. / Flying planes are dangerous. This isn't the same example, but 'Flying planes is dangerous' is closely related (perhaps a deleted form of) 'The flying of planes is dangerous'; 'Women driving cars' could be construed as at least a paraphrase of 'The driving of cars by women' (as well as 'car-driving women'), and notional agreement not automatically discounted. – Edwin Ashworth Aug 09 '16 at 22:22

3 Answers3

2

I'd say that Women driving cars is probably a noun phrase with "women" as head and "driving cars" as a gerund-participial post-head modifier. Noun phrases with plural head nouns take plural agreement, in this case "are":

Women driving cars are, of course, such a foreign sight to a society like Saudi Arabia.

On the other hand, it could be a clause with "women" as subject and "driving cars" as predicate. In that case the correct verb-form is singular "is" (clause subjects take singular agreement):

Women driving cars is, of course, such a foreign sight to a society like Saudi Arabia.

However, neither version sounds wholly felicitous, probably because of this grammatical ambiguity of the subject.

BillJ
  • 12,832
  • No, either verb works. Consider the sentence Women driving cars is/are not allowed in Saudi Arabia. In that sentence, you can only use is. – Peter Shor Mar 18 '16 at 19:59
  • @Peter Shor That's a different construction in which "women driving cars" is a clause, not a noun phrase. Clause subjects take singular agreement. – BillJ Mar 18 '16 at 20:02
  • But "women driving cars" could be a clause in the OP's sentence, too. That's my point. – Peter Shor Mar 19 '16 at 10:06
  • @ Peter Shor I didn't initially like the idea of it being a clause because I thought that semantically the predicate could only apply to women, not to a situation in which women drive cars. But on reflection, the latter reading could in fact be plausible, in which case the clausal analysis (with singular agreement) is indeed possible, and I've edited by answer accordingly. Nevertheless, neither version seems 'natural' to me and I've reflected that in my edit. – BillJ Mar 20 '16 at 20:44
  • Maybe we should retract our clause and rewrite the sentence to be more easily parsed? –  Apr 12 '16 at 19:30
2

If We were asked to make the sentence in the post complex the sentece would read something like this.

  • That women are driving cars is, of course, such a foreign sight to a society like Saudi Arabia.

The sentence or, for that matter, the phrase is complemented by ' a foreign sight'. I think there is no dichotomy in the use of singular verb form.

A concept of 'foreign sight' enbodied in the whole of the noun phrase, 'women driving cars' is the subject. The speaker has no intention to make the 'women' subject- the only plausible option in such phrase- when a plural verb is required.

Barid Baran Acharya
  • 2,343
-3

The short answer to the question is no. To help clarify this, let us consider the words missing--but implied--in these two examples:

  1. Women [who are] driving cars are a foreign sight to a society like Saudi Arabia.

  2. Cows [that are] eating grass are quieter than those eating pretzels.

The verb is plural because "women" is the subject; "driving cars" is a restricted participial phrase modifying "women".

Technically speaking, if "driving" were a gerund, it should be modified by the possessive form of "women", as in "Women's driving cars is not allowed in Saudi Arabia."

This use of the possessive case often falls by the wayside in current-day English. Sometimes, it doesn't seem to make a difference. Other times, it can change the meaning:

"The woman driving was affected by alcohol."

"The woman's driving was affected by alcohol."

user165920
  • 30
  • Yeah, the phrase seems a bit like a "crash blossom" to me. I would vote for rewriting it to avoid confusing and awkward meanings and agreements. –  Apr 12 '16 at 19:28
  • People saying things like this always annoys me, because here people is the subject of the non-finite verb clause people saying things, and verb clauses used as subjects are always singular. – tchrist Feb 19 '17 at 05:01