That was/were

indigo123 · Jan 3, 2012

Hey all,

My sentence (describing the past) reads as below and MS Word immediately tells me that I should replace "that was" by "that were". I am not sure if it is required since I am talking about "being able to network with x". Please help!

Any additional work meant that I wouldn't have been able to network with recruiters that was so crucial in obtaining a job especially in those circumstances.

Thank you.
Indigo

Nissie · Jan 3, 2012

I'm not the best expert so take my words with a grain of salt.

Since you're referring not to the ability to network and not the recruiters, it should be singular form, so you're right.

But I don't usually like using "that" in a sentence in this way, so I try to cut back down on it as much as I possibly can. It clutters the paragraph up sometimes, and it's a tricky word. You don't usually realize you don't need it until you cut it out. So you could use:

Any additional work meant that I wouldn't have been able to network with recruiters which was crucial in obtaining a job, especially in those circumstances.

poetinahat · Jan 3, 2012

I'd go further. If you insist on using the "that was" construction, I'd say you need to talk about the ability as a noun, not "being able". I think a better solution might be reworking the sentence, avoiding the awkward syntax.

You could end up with two sentences, even.

One example:

If I'd taken on additional work, I wouldn't have had time to network with recruiters. Without networking, finding a job would have been nearly impossible.

Chase · Jan 3, 2012

Any additional work meant that I wouldn't have been able to network with recruiters that was so crucial in obtaining a job especially in those circumstances.

Word grammar check will call foul even if most of ball is in fair territory. In the case above, I suspect "that was" is too close after "recruiters," causing Word to want something like "who were."

Would something like this less wordy version work?

Any additional work meant I wouldn't have been able to network with recruiters, crucial in those circumstances to obtain a job.

Fallen · Jan 4, 2012

I think Chase hit the mark with grammar check thinking 'that was' was restictive to 'recruits' (I think I read it that way too, to be honest). Alleycat hit the mark with pinpointing 'that' as a referral to 'networking and the neede to break it down.

Any additional work meant that I wouldn't have been able to network with recruiters, and that (networking) was so crucial in obtaining a job, especially in those circumstances.

Any additional work meant that I wouldn't have been able to network with recruiters, and networking was so crucial in obtaining a job, especially in those circumstances.

or

Any additional work meant that I wouldn't have been able to network with recruiters. Networking was crucial to securing employment, especially in those circumstances.

There are a number of ways to re-write and keep focus. (I like AC's)

Dr.Gonzo · Jan 4, 2012

Yeah I've got a problem with the sentence. It's unclear, messy. Sorry. I usually dislike advice that doesn't answer the question and instead pulls out another problem. Most of the time, however, that advice is right. I'd rewrite this sentence--you'll find the problem doesn't occur again when you do.

eward · Jan 4, 2012

I agree with Dr. Gonzo, because even without "with recruiters" it doesn't sound right. You don't usually use "that was" with a verb construction like "been able." I like poetinahat and Fallen's suggestions for rewriting.

absitinvidia · Jan 4, 2012

indigo123 said:
Hey all,

My sentence (describing the past) reads as below and MS Word immediately tells me that I should replace "that was" by "that were". I am not sure if it is required since I am talking about "being able to network with x". Please help!

Thank you.
Indigo

If you choose to use "that" to refer to recruiters (many on this forum would mandate "who"), you need "were" here. "wouldn't have been able to network" cannot, IMHO, be what "that" refers to in this sentence.

"Being able to network with x" is, as you state above, a gerund phrase (and therefore a noun phrase). But as it's presented in the original sentence, it's part of a verb phrase ("wasn't able to network"). Therefore the noun governing "that" is "recruiters," which is plural and therefore requires "were."

Chase · Jan 4, 2012

absitinvidia said:
If you choose to use "that" to refer to recruiters (many on this forum would mandate "who"), you need "were" here. "wouldn't have been able to network" cannot, IMHO, be what "that" refers to in this sentence."

Ha ha ha, the urge to quibble begets quibbles. The second "that" doesn't refer to "recruiters," so the many on this forum who mandate would err by mandating "who."

The second "that" refers to "able to network" a perfectly good noun phrase to act as antecedent for "that" if the rest of phrase "with recruiters" didn't throw a monkey wrench in the MS Word's works.

No wonder some posters think we have little postage stamp mustaches and goose-step around in jackboots.

absitinvidia · Jan 4, 2012

Chase said:
Ha ha ha, the urge to quibble begets quibbles. The second "that" doesn't refer to "recruiters," so the many on this forum who mandate would err by mandating "who."

The second "that" refers to "able to network" a perfectly good noun phrase to act as antecedent for "that" if the rest of phrase "with recruiters" didn't throw a monkey wrench in the MS Word's works.

No wonder some posters think we have little postage stamp mustaches and goose-step around in jackboots.

"Able" is an adjective.

"Able to network" is an adjective phrase.

If you parse "I wouldn't have been able to work with recruiters that":

I = subject
wouldn't have been = conditional
able to work = adjectival phrase
with = preposition
recruiters that = noun phrase, object of preposition "with"

Chase · Jan 4, 2012

Only guilty of doing what I was told.

Chase, clicking heels and saluting a '40s Deutscher Gruß

pegasus · Jan 4, 2012

indigo123 said:
Any additional work meant that I wouldn't have been able to network with recruiters that was so crucial in obtaining a job especially in those circumstances.

Hi, Indigo. For fun, try substituting 'which' and 'who' for 'that'... just to see how the sentence sounds to you.

... it meant that I couldn't network with recruiters who was so crucial in....

...it meant that I couldn't network with recruiters which was so crucial in....

In the first sentence, you'd need to use 'who were' of course.

But if your meaning is, as you say, more like the second, then the use of 'which' would help clarify. I'd also advise a comma or even a dash, like this:

It meant that I couldn't network with recruiters -- which was so crucial....

But I agree that rephrasing the whole thing might be better. And I'd also suggest a comma between 'job' and 'especially.'

... a job, especially in those circumstances.

Just my two cents or so.

bonitakale · Jan 4, 2012

Word is wrong, and so's the sentence. Lot of good ideas up there, but if for some reason you wanted to keep "that was," you'd write,

Any additional work meant that I wouldn't have been able to do the networking with recruiters that was so crucial in obtaining a job especially in those circumstances.

BethS · Jan 5, 2012

Any additional work meant that I wouldn't have been able to network with recruiters that was so crucial in obtaining a job especially in those circumstances.

"That was" is definitely a problem, but "that were" is not a cure. The sentence as written is nonsensical.

I think what you're meaning to say is this--

Any additional work meant that I wouldn't have been able to network with recruiters, which was so crucial in obtaining a job, especially in those circumstances.

If you want to retain "that was," you'd have to word it thusly--

Any additional work meant that I wouldn't have been able to do the networking with recruiters that was so crucial in obtaining a job, especially in those circumstances.

However, in that case, you don't need "that was" at all; it's implied.

Any additional work meant that I wouldn't have been able to do the networking with recruiters so crucial in obtaining a job, especially in those circumstances.

And note that in every example, I added a necessary comma after "job." Also, I presume that "those circumstances" is made clear in context? Because as it stands, it's not clear what "those circumstances" refers to.

That was/were

indigo123

Nissie

not a beer

poetinahat

Numbers are beautiful

Chase

It Takes All of Us to End Racism

Fallen

Stood at the coalface

Dr.Gonzo

Wonderfully Irreverent

eward

absitinvidia

A bit of a wallflower

Chase

It Takes All of Us to End Racism

absitinvidia

A bit of a wallflower

Chase

It Takes All of Us to End Racism

pegasus

practical experience, FTW

bonitakale

BethS