Back to the Grammar Well

[TarnishedPenny]

Again, I'm seeing arguments either way. In your opinion, is it:

Now, there were always a pair of guards.

or

Now, there was always a pair of guards.

Thanks'

tp

 

[mildlyaroused]

The subject is the "pair", which is a singular noun, so I'd go with "was."

There was a pair of guards.

There were two guards.

 

[Cagivagurl]

Was might be correct?
I do not understand grammar.
However. Were sounds better when spoken.
At least with a Kiwi accent....

 

[Priscilla_June]

Tbh to me, if its that controversial, Id go with Were, because it flows better with Always.

 

[Bamagan]

Again, I'm seeing arguments either way. In your opinion, is it:

Now, there were always a pair of guards.

or

Now, there was always a pair of guards.

Thanks'

tp

I believe the 'was' vs. 'were' debate relates to the plurality of the subject, with 'were' being used for the plural. If you remove the word 'pair' then you're clearly into "there were always guards" being correct. If you remove 'guards', making them an implied subject, you're clearly into "there was always a pair" being correct. Despite being a collective noun of sorts, talking about 'a pair' of something is treating both things as a unit, and therefore singular, which is probably why both sentences sound like they could be correct.

TL;DR The second sentence is correct, at least in most conventional uses.

 

[mildlyaroused]

For the record, though I still think the second is 'more' correct, I think you should just choose in terms of your preference. Neither is terribly wrong. Either would be accepted by 99.9999% of readers.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Now, there were always guards, a pair of them.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

For the record, though I still think the second is 'more' correct, I think you should just choose in terms of your preference. Neither is terribly wrong. Either would be accepted by 99.9999% of readers.

Ah, but the risible rabble of readers I can handle; it is the scorn of my brainiac fellow writers I fear.

Thanks, all. I'll go with 'were'.

 

[KeithD]

According to Harry Shaw, Dictionary of Problem Words and Expressions, it should be "were," because the guards are separate individuals. They aren't a matched set. They are two separate individuals just happening to be on duty together that day. (So, "whatever," I guess.) Since it's not definitive, I'd probably write around it as has already been suggested.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Ah, but the risible rabble of readers I can handle; it is the scorn of my brainiac fellow writers I fear.

Thanks, all. I'll go with 'were'.

EB looked closely at TP's choice.

Consider it another way: if it was a battalion of guards, would you still use "were"?

I'm with "was", not "were". Unless they're wolves. That might work.

 

[HollyS]

It's "were."

Take the rest of the sentence out and compare -

"There were guards."

"There was guards."

That clarifies which to use.

Edit - this is wrong! I forgot that there was a "pair" of guards. "Pair" is treated as singular.

There was a pair.

 

[ElectricBlue]

It's "were."

Take the rest of the sentence out and compare -

"There were guards."

"There was guards."

That clarifies which to use.

A "pair" is grammatically singular though: you only have "a" pair. Surely you'd say, "There was a pair", not, "There were a pair"?

 

[HollyS]

A "pair" is grammatically singular though: you only have "a" pair. Surely you'd say, "There was a pair", not, "There were a pair"?

You are correct. By the time I read through the responses, I had forgotten that we were talking about a "pair" of guards! My bad.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

At least I am now somewhat comforted by my initial confusion.

Thanks again.

 

[KeithD]

A "pair" is grammatically singular though: you only have "a" pair. Surely you'd say, "There was a pair", not, "There were a pair"?

Webster's lists "pair" as both singular and plural, contributing to the confusion. But the singular is listed first.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Webster's lists "pair" as both singular and plural, contributing to the confusion. But the singular is listed first.

I will admit to being singularly confused.

 

[OffNSFW]

They're equally wrong, so go with what looks/sounds better.

 

[DeadJasmine]

The subject is what calls...
'Twas singular, after all!
And when decision falls,
There was a pair of balls

 

[HollyS]

The subject is what calls...
'Twas singular, after all!
And when decision falls,
There was a pair of balls

See. "Was a pair."

 

[SimonDoom]

It can be either singular or plural, depending on the context.

I think one could say, "A pair of guards was standing outside the door."

But one would also say, "A pair of guards were daydreaming about what they'd do when their shift was done."

In the second case you couldn't properly use the singular, because they're not daydreaming as one; they're both daydreaming simultaneously.

But in the first case I think you could use either singular or plural.

You could eliminate the problem by making a different verb choice. Rather than use the linking verb to be/was/were, how about:

A pair of guards always stood outside the door.

"Stood" is both singular and plural. No need to choose. Problem avoided. It's also more active.

This strategy solves the problem quite often, because active verbs, unlike "to be," often show no difference between plural and singular.

 

[DeadJasmine]

A paradox was plaguing the patient

 

[DeadJasmine]

See. "Was a pair."

Positively pair o' ball lick

 

[HollyS]

Positively pair o' ball lick

I'll probably follow that story arc later tonight.

 

[DeadJasmine]

It can be either singular or plural, depending on the context.

I think one could say, "A pair of guards was standing outside the door."

But one would also say, "A pair of guards were daydreaming about what they'd do when their shift was done."

In the second case you couldn't properly use the singular, because they're not daydreaming as one; they're both daydreaming simultaneously.

But in the first case I think you could use either singular or plural.

You could eliminate the problem by making a different verb choice. Rather than use the linking verb to be/was/were, how about:

A pair of guards always stood outside the door.

"Stood" is both singular and plural. No need to choose. Problem avoided. It's also more active.

This strategy solves the problem quite often, because active verbs, unlike "to be," often show no difference between plural and singular.

A pair of guard studs outside the door...

 

[SimonDoom]

A pair of guard studs outside the door...

There are many ways to skin this cat.