In the sentence "Fitzwilliam is one of those lawyers who ______ been with the firm a long time," is the verb "has" because it must agree with the singular subject (Fitzwilliam) or is the verb "have" because the "who" clause modifies lawyers, a plural noun?

Lasciata Speranza

Sometimes, the pronoun ' who', 'that', or 'which' is the subject of a verb in the middle of the sentence.

"Fitzwilliam is one of those lawyers WHO + VERB with the firm a long time,"


These pronouns become singular or plural according to the noun directly in front of them.
So, if that noun is singular, use a singular verb. If it is plural, use a plural verb.

Examples:
"
Paul is the teacher who writes the reports.
"
The word in front of 'who' is teacher, which is singular. Therefore, use the singular verb 'writes'.

"He is one of the men who do the work.
"
The word in front of 'who' is 'men', which is plural. Therefore, use the plural verb 'do'.

Hence:

"Fitzwilliam is one of those lawyers who have been with the firm a long time,"

It occurred to me that you might understand why the above makes sense, if I write the sentence this way:

"Of those lawyers who have been with the firm a long time, Fitzwilliam has been here the longest."

This is a great question. The answer is "have" of course. But, look at this:

Have you seen my box of marbles which was under the stairs?

In this example, the which is singular.

It's all about spotting the antecedent. In your example, it's lawyers. In this example, it's box.

In most cases, the object of the preposition does not determine the verb, but it can.

All the cake has been stolen.
All the cakes have been stolen.

(More on subject-verb agreement.)

In your sentence those lawyers who have been with the firm a long time is the object of the preposition. It's not just those laywers who.

There is an interesting point about your question: only someone with a sound understanding of grammar would choose the wrong version. I don't think that happens too often. Interesting idea.

I fear that, in trying to respond in simple terms, my reply was too simplistic.

Your sentence has 'one of the lawyers'.
With indefinite quantifiers (one, all, few, many, much, some), fractions and percentages, the verb agrees with the preceding noun or clause, as stated in my first reply. Hence, the use of 'have' in the original sentence.

All the information is up to date.
All of the boys are going.

One-third of the book is about his early life .
One-third of the students have graduate degrees.

Fifty percent of the course is laboratory work.
Fifty percent of the computers have CD-ROM drives.

In the sentence:
"…the box of marbles that was under the stairs"
there is no indefinite qualifier. 'that' refers back to 'box' and so the verb is singular.

That and which are interchangeable when there is no comma before which (i.e., it starts a restrictive clause). Lots of grammarians advocate the ruling that only that can start a restrictive clause. Their argument falls over when who is the relative pronoun (i.e., we don't say one of those lawyers that...).


The object of the preposition is in bold below:

He is one of those lawyers who has been with the firm a long time.

He is one of them.

The words those lawyers who has been with the firm a long time play the role of a single noun.

"That and which are interchangeable when there is no comma before which (i.e., it starts a restrictive clause). "

There is a comma before 'which' BECAUSE it starts a non-restrictive clause.
'that' starts a restrictive clause, and so there is no comma. The 'that' clause specifies the preceding noun and so is not separated from it.
'which' introduces additional information not essential to the sentence, and so is a separate idea, indicated as such by the use of a comma.

'the box of marbles…' Not the box I keep in my bedroom, but specifically,
'the box of marbles THAT was under the stairs'

'who' DOES start a restrictive clause, defining more precisely which lawyers are being referred to, so NO COMMA.
So - I don't understand what is meant by:

"Lots of grammarians advocate the ruling that only that can start a restrictive clause. Their argument falls over when 'who' is the relative pronoun."

Restrictive use, no comma:
He is one of those lawyers who has been with the firm a long time.
Non-restrictive use, with comma:
Mr. Smith, who teaches at our school, plays the organ for his church.
'who teaches at our school' is additional information, and separated off with commas.
compare
The Mr. Smith who teaches at our school also plays the organ for his church.
Not Mr. Smith, the candlestick maker, but specifically the one who teaches at our school.

Yeah, we know all that. The point is: it's the same deal with which as you've described with who.

who = that

,who != that

which = that

,which != that

(!= means does not equal)

In other words, which can start a restrictive clause or a non-restrictive clause (just like who). That is the only one with the limitation. It can only start a restrictive clause.

I would also say I've had this debate lots of times over the last decade. I've come to this conclusion: it's a matter of style. Some people don't like which at the head of a restrictive clause, and some people do. I'm in the latter camp. You're in the former. That's the bottom line, I'd say.

I think that has a reputation for being a clumsy word, so lots of writers like to avoid it. (I think this is spin-off it being redundant in terms like He said that it was nice.)

Still, a good debate.

GM said: "There is an interesting point about your question: only someone with a sound understanding of grammar would choose the wrong version. I don't think that happens too often. Interesting idea."

Yes, well I was an English major in college and practiced as a lawyer and free-lance writer for many years. My question arose as a result of my having missed this exact question on a grammar quiz that has been making the rounds of late.

http://tinyurl.com/bb7wepp

When Bazza rewrote the sentence as "Of those lawyers who have been with the firm a long time, Fitzwilliam has been here the longest," it is obvious that the "who" phrase modifies the plural lawyers. I think what I was doing in my mind was similarly rewriting it to "Fitzwilliam is one ... who has, etc." Sure, that's cheating, but I'm pretty sure that's how I tricked myself. And I'm likely to do it again if I'm not careful.

I don't know how anyone who hasn't grown up with a librarian father and an English teacher mother can ever learn this language. I really don't.

Anyway, thanks very much for taking your time to resolve this mystery for me.