0

I'm probably overthinking this, but I can't decide if it should be "was" or "were" in this case. Can someone explain to me which is correct and why? I think part of my problem is that, assuming were/was is the verb, I'm not sure what the subject is. Should it be conjugated to match "donuts"? Thanks.

Kaleo
  • 11
  • Look up synesis on Wikipedia or notional agreement. Similar questions: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/405091/a-huge-crowd-were-was/405112#405112 and https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/380167/200-job-losses-is-are-not-a-price-worth-paying/380178#380178 and many more. – Zebrafish Sep 26 '19 at 18:17
  • It should be "there were supposed to be donuts," not "was." That's because the subject of the sentence is "donuts," which is plural. "There" isn't the subject. It's a pronoun being used to introduce the sentence in an inverse sentence structure. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/there?s=t (see definition 7) –  Sep 26 '19 at 18:52
  • This is colloquial Modern English, not written formalism. In spoken English, There was supposed to be and There were supposed to be would be virtually indistinguishable; both would be pronounced /ˌðɛ'spostəbi/, with the r/s distinction swallowed by supposed to, but the vowel of there showing the necessary existential flag. Third person singular/plural verb inflection (as well as irrelevant tense inflection) is virtually dead in English, and every attempt is made to avoid it in daily life. Only English students are exempt from this knowledge, apparently. – John Lawler Sep 26 '19 at 20:05

0 Answers0