"who have"

tko said:

[FONT=&quot] Arrg, this is driving me crazy and I'm going to feel dumb when you guys explain it. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Is the word "have" necessary, and does it add anything to the following sentence? My brain is flip flopping back and forth on this one.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It was her children who have modified his research.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It was her children who modified his research.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It was her children who have won the race.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It was her children who won the race.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It was her children who had won the race.[/FONT]

Click to expand...

You're mixing up your tenses. You've got past tense (was) with present perfect (have).

It was her children who had modified his research.

But--you don't need "had" there. It's implied. Same here--

It was her children who won the race.

tko said:

Arrg, this is driving me crazy and I'm going to feel dumb when you guys explain it. Is the word have necessary, and does it add anything to the following sentence? My brain is flip flopping back and forth on this one. It was her children who have modified his research. It was her children who modified his research.

Click to expand...

It should be either
It was her child who has modified his research.
or
It was her children who have modified their research.
depending on how many people were involved. and the second one is doubtful, because it really should be
They were her children who have modified their research.

It was her children who have won the race. It was her children who won the race. It was her children who had won the race.

Click to expand...

It appears that this should be It was her child who won the race.

Snick said:

It should be either
It was her child who has modified his research.
or
It was her children who have modified their research.
depending on how many people were involved. and the second one is doubtful, because it really should be
They were her children who have modified their research.

It appears that this should be It was her child who won the race.

Click to expand...

I think you're mixing tenses there, Snick.

who has modified his research is present-perfect tense. Something was done in the past but it still has present consequences.

It is her child who has modified his research.
It was her child who had modified his research.

These are correct:

It was her children who modified his research.

It was her children who won the race.

The various forms of "have" are unnecessary.

tko said:

[FONT=&quot]It was her children who have won the race.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It was her children who won the race.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It was her children who had won the race.[/FONT]

Click to expand...

The biggest problem is the "It was X who did Y" sentence construction, which is almost always clumsy and wordy, and can be rendered more efficiently as "X did Y". As, in substitute for the example above:

Her children won the race.

In my first editing pass on rough drafts, I always look for the phrases "It is-- It was-- There is-- There was--" to find these gremlins. Most can be eliminated with ease, and it saves three words every time.

caw

An it-cleft construction can be used by a writer to foreground information to the reader.
For example:
A writer can use an it-cleft construction in order to draw the reader's attention to the foregrounded element (which is underlined in the above examples). It-cleft constructions have their (appropriate) uses; though sometimes, an aspiring writer might overuse them, especially in early drafts.

F.E. said:

The it-cleft can be used by a writer to foreground information to the reader. For example:

1. Her children had won the race. (non-cleft)
​

2. It was her children who had won the race. (it-cleft)​

3. It was the race that her children had won. (it-cleft)​

A writer can use an it-cleft construction in order to draw the reader's attention to the foregrounded element (which is underlined in the above examples). It-cleft have their (appropriate) uses; though sometimes, an aspiring writer might overuse them, especially in early drafts.

Click to expand...

You'll note I never said never use it. But I teach English composition, and try to teach informal efficient prose writing as well as more structured academic writing. 90% of the "It was X that did Y" or "There was X that was Y" sentences need to be reduced to the simple past, as I suggested before.

I am convinced that these constructions arise out of the subliminal beliefs among inexperienced writers that more words = better writing, and simplicity = lack of intelligence. I try to drive a big wooden stake through the hearts of those beliefs, whenever I can.

caw

blacbird said:

You'll note I never said never use it. But I teach English composition, and try to teach informal efficient prose writing as well as more structured academic writing. 90% of the "It was X that did Y" or "There was X that was Y" sentences need to be reduced to the simple past, as I suggested before.

I am convinced that these constructions arise out of the subliminal beliefs among inexperienced writers that more words = better writing, and simplicity = lack of intelligence. I try to drive a big wooden stake through the hearts of those beliefs, whenever I can.

caw

Click to expand...

I do agree that many aspiring writers (and established successful writers) do often overuse constructions like it-clefts and existentials.

But they do have a use in prose, and in some situations, are the better constructions than the shorter more canonical-looking constructions. It is these information-packaging constructions (such as it-clefts and existentials and preposing and postposing), which often involve "extra words", that help to glide the reader smoothly from one sentence to the next. And they also help to emphasize those important parts of a clause or sentence to the reader.

As fiction writers, we also need to know about these constructions, and learn when which ones might be more appropriate due to the surrounding context. (The OP's original construction, per se, is basically fine--as it is using an it-cleft.)

Aspiring writers perhaps tend to go too far one way--using a bunch of too many it-clefts and existentials and other wordy type of constructions. But I'm finding that many of the more experienced writers perhaps tend to go too far in the opposite direction, which makes much of their prose rather too uniform sounding and "not quite there". imo.

Also, usually on writer forums, when questions like this one comes up, there is seldom a mention of why something like an it-cleft construction might be more appropriate, nor a discussion explaining the strengths and weakness of it. It will be very hard for a writer to successfully write fiction prose without using information packaging constructions such as it-clefts and existentials, or understanding how they work.

The standard of judgment for "it-clefts" is simple: Does it serve a function, or not? If not, it should be jettisoned. My experience with inexperienced writers is that they don't even recognize this construction, let alone when it does or does not serve a purpose. This is true of a lot of writing issues, but I've found the "it-cleft" to be one of the biggest offenders via overuse.

That was my point, and nothing more.

caw

Agreeing with Blacbird that most often in writing of any kind less is better.

Teachers of any age group who demand 200-word or 500-word or 1,000-word essays beg for padded prose:

The cowboy drew his revolver, which went bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. . . .

There's a great hilarious scene in the play "You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown", where the kids have an assignment to write 100 words on something. I don't recall the exact wording, but Lucy writes something like:

"The day was very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very . . . sunny.'

caw

F.E. said:

Also, usually on writer forums, when questions like this one comes up, there is seldom a mention of why something like an it-cleft construction might be more appropriate, nor a discussion explaining the strengths and weakness of it. It will be very hard for a writer to successfully write fiction prose without using information packaging constructions such as it-clefts and existentials, or understanding how they work.

Click to expand...

Agreed. It's promoted that writers research their markets, scientific fact, historical context etc (and rightly so), it only makes sense, then, that they take that one step further and research the craft as well.

Also, native English speakers do use these information packaging constructs all the time, although they might not be aware of the formal terms.

The brother doesn't say "Sue stole the cookie, Mom!", because the brother wants to emphasize to their mom that it was Sue, not him, and not the two of them, that had stolen the cookie. And so, the brother foregrounds that info--"Sue"--to his mom. (The old info, which is already known to both him and his mom, is that the cookie was stolen, and that old info is backgrounded into a relative clause.)

EDITED-TO-ADD: Since the speaker is a young boy, he'd probably actually say something closer to the below:


These information packaging constructions are commonly used in standard English, in print and in speech. Even more so in the well-rehearsed speeches of politicians.

A big problem is that when we, as writers, are editing and revising and struggling to get the prose to produce in the reader that effect that we want, we are too close to the words. We are consciously doing that process of editing, and that often causes us to sanitize the prose, so that it ends up sounding and looking very much, perhaps too much, like the expected prose that is expected by peers and instructors. Which, unfortunately, is often not our prose-type of style or our voice for that specific story.

And so, as we struggle in our editing, once we recognize a troublesome spot in the prose, then, we would like to blindly educatedly apply a remedy to fix that little spot: which often can involve rearranging the elements and phrases--information packaging.

"It was" is almost always unnecessary. "Had" can usually be left out, as well.

Know who the character is, but from my experience, not even kids talk this way. A kid would simply say, "Sue did it, not me."

I think you need to experiment with structure. Much of what you question comes not from what words mean, but from the way your sentences of structured. When you question a sentence change it around, write it in different ways.

And sometimes you just need to cut words. It's hard to beat, Her children won the race."

Jamesaritchie said:

"It was" is almost always unnecessary. "Had" can usually be left out, as well.

Know who the character is, but from my experience, not even kids talk this way. A kid would simply say, "Sue did it, not me."

I think you need to experiment with structure. Much of what you question comes not from what words mean, but from the way your sentences of structured. When you question a sentence change it around, write it in different ways.

And sometimes you just need to cut words. It's hard to beat, Her children won the race."

Click to expand...

Bingo. Exactly.

caw

blacbird said:

Bingo. Exactly.

caw

Click to expand...

Bingo? Bingo? ... Ah, that game called Bingo.

So that's what we're playing. (Copied the below from http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/29595.html)

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities
English novelist (1812 - 1870)

Click to expand...

Okay, how many points do I get for that?

3 down, carry the 7.

But if I carry it, who's gonna pay for the delivery?

Though, in Charles Dicken's case, he might have been getting paid per word ...

Okay, maybe using something from A Tale of Two Cities--Charles Dickens, English novelist (1812 - 1870)--might be considered too old for some people. So let's look at something more recently published.

In W.D. Wetherell's short story "What Peter Saw" (published in 1989, or maybe some years before that), its first paragraph:

The first timeless thing Peter ever saw was on August 29, 1968, at two o'clock in a humid Friday afternoon. It was in his own bedroom that he saw it, though at the time he was outside peering in, his face camouflaged by the yellow blossoms of his mother's roses. What was taking place there beside the bed was so strange to a child's imagination, so simple, so touched with grace, that he knew even then the sight of it would remain with him the rest of his life. Remembering, the 1968 part faded away, and it could just as easily have been a moment in the 1940s somewhere, or 1914 in the last twilight of the Edwardian summer, or even further back, back beyond all his history books, back to the days when Greece was taking boys with no malice in them and sticking spears in their hands and shipping them off to Troy.

Click to expand...

In the very second sentence of the story, there seems to perhaps be one of those "unnecessary" information packaging constructions being used: It was in his own bedroom that he saw it, ...

Perhaps it could be seen as using an it-cleft:

• He saw it in his own bedroom, (non-cleft)
• It was in his own bedroom that he saw it, (it-cleft)

Imagine what that prose would read like if the non-cleft version was used. *UGH!* imo.

Let's look at another example.

In the short story "Things to Come: Maine, 1951" by W.D. Wetherell, on the second page of his short story are the following four paragraphs: (paragraphs 2-5 of the story):

"Ballast," he said, echoing his thoughts the way he did on long drives. "Feet on the ground, camouflage, branch office in the here and now."

He had a hunch even in 2001 he'd be at least five years ahead of everyone -- it was good business being ahead. The ledger book beside him on the seat was thick with new orders, and now and then he would take his eyes off the road long enough to glance down at it in satisfaction, feeling like a farmer whose prize heifer, plump already, is putting on weight.

"Hey fatso," he said, affectionately patting it. "What's for lunch today, hey baby? Who's going to feed us, hey? Who's going to become a rich hick today?"

He was feeling good, there was no denying it. It wasn't just the thick order book or the fact he'd spent the night roughhousing a chambermaid at the last motor court or the way the Studebaker was purring beneath him like a kitten. He was feeling good because he was back on the road again aligned with truth. He was feeling good because he knew what truth was, knew where it was, how to grab it and turn it his way. Good because it was so easy for him now, all he had to do was reach up and close his fist and there it was right there in the center of his palm -- truth and riches and the secret of the times.

Click to expand...

There are quite a few "it was" phrases in there. Perhaps some of them aren't part of our discussion. ... But anyway, let's look at the first one: it was good business being ahead. Perhaps that could be considered to be using the information packaging construction "extraposition" or that of a construction using "impersonal/dummy/idiom it":

• being ahead was good business.
• it was good business being ahead. (extraposition/"impersonal/dummy/idiom it")

I prefer the way W.D. Wetherell wrote it.

Did someone say "Bingo"? This is how Bingo is played, right?

Edited-to-add: Yeah, had to sorta cover myself a little better.

Whoops, my TV show is on.

F.E. said:

Bingo? Bingo? ... Ah, that game called Bingo.

Okay, how many points do I get for that?

Click to expand...

None. You miss the grammatical point. It's not a matter of "it was", but a matter of "it was X that did Y" sentence construction. None of Dickens's "it wases" fits that construction (the "it-cleft" referred to earlier in this thread). I pointed that out, as did JAR, who has a hell of a lot more street cred here than I do.

caw

tko said:

[FONT=&quot] Arrg, this is driving me crazy and I'm going to feel dumb when you guys explain it. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Is the word "have" necessary, and does it add anything to the following sentence? My brain is flip flopping back and forth on this one.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It was her children who have modified his research.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It was her children who modified his research.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It was her children who have won the race.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It was her children who won the race.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It was her children who had won the race.[/FONT]

Click to expand...

I agree that usually it's best to just get rid of "It was" (and "who"). Then the wording is usually less cumbersome, plus doing so makes it easier to figure out the correct verb.

Her children have won the race.
Her children won the race.
Her children had won the race.

Each one could be correct--depends on the situation.

And sometimes "It was" is the best way to go. I think this could be the case if we have some background information, and then, *to our surprise,* something different than what's expected happens. As stated earlier, "It was" can serve to emphasize the thing that follows.

Say, for example, that while the mayor was away, his prize chicken fell into a ravine. We expected Big Jim would be the person to save it, or maybe the Carson boys. There were many strong men in town who might have been willing to fight off the coyotes and snakes in the ravine. We certainly wouldn't have exected any help from little Sally who is afraid of bunnies. However, despite what we expected...

It was Sally who saved the chicken.

tko said:

[FONT=&quot] Arrg, this is driving me crazy and I'm going to feel dumb when you guys explain it.

Is the word "have" necessary, and does it add anything to the following sentence? My brain is flip flopping back and forth on this one.

It was her children who have modified his research.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]It was her children who modified his research.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]It was her children who have won the race.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It was her children who won the race.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It was her children who had won the race.[/FONT]

Click to expand...

To me, all the sentences sounds awkward with unnecessary words. Why not these:

Her children modified his research.
Her children won the race.