Dear RL:
You wrote:

>Regarding the same issue, can I use a singular verb if I want to modify “jewellery sector”?

> The jewellery sector in Italy is one of the key manufacturing industries that HAS sustained constant growth in exports.

>Thank you again for your kind attention.

In this case the clause would be modifying the word “one” since that is the closest singular word to the clause. However, since “one” is standing in for “jewelry sector,” then the effect is the same.

>”Precious metal,” can it be plural?

>Thanks again.

If you are speaking of more than one variety–for example, silver and gold–then you would say “Precious metals.”

Dear RL:

You wrote:
>If I write:

>A series of promotional activities that RELATE/RELATES…..

>Kindly clarify.

You could use either verb depending on which word you want the adjective clause to modify.

The clause that begins “that relates” is an adjective clause. It could modify either “series” or “activities.” If you want it to modify “series,” then the verb would be “relates” since “series” is singular and “that” is the pronoun replacing “series.” However, if you want the clause to describe “activities,” then you would use the verb “relate” because “activities” is plural and the “that” would be standing for “activities.”

Generally, you would want to place the clause as close as possible to the word it modifies. That is not always possible–in this case because of the prepositional phrase “of promotional activities.” If the subject of the sentence were also plural, readers would assume that the clause modifies “activities.” But if you want the clause to modify “series,” then the verb “relates” would make it clear that the clause is describing the series, not the activities. You can make the distinction here because one noun is singular and one noun is plural.

Dear D:

You wrote:

> I believe Churchill’s correction to his sentence that ended in a
> prepostion was incorrect. “Up with” is part of the verb “put up with”.
> There is a class of verbs that are constructed of a verb and a word (in
> this case two) that is usually used as a preposition. The way to
> distinguish them is through their meaning. The term “put up with” does not
> mean “place in a higher location with” I also think the point of the rule
> is not that the object of the preposition preceeds the prepostion but that
> the prepostiton has no object. Usually when a sentence ends in a
> preposition the inferred obect is already the object of the verb. Sayin
> “with which” creates a word that can act as the object of the prepostiton.
> For example, “I like the town I come from.” Where is the object of the
> prepostiton, “from”? “Town” is the object of the verb.
> I suppose one could say, “I like the town which I came from.” This would
> still violate the “rule” but not its spirit.

The whole thing is bogus. If you check our newsletters online, you’ll see that we have received more correspondence on this “rule” than anything. The most striking thing is that no one follows it. The few nineteenth century grammar texts that mentioned it did so in the way we stated. It has been a while, but I believe Linsley was one such text.

Here are a couple of our newletters that dealt with questions people had on this:
https://www.englishplus.com/news/news0201.htm
and
https://www.englishplus.com/news/news0401.htm

> Another sentence that bothers me is, “Where is my car at?” It is redundant
> to use “where” and “at” together.
>
Yes, we mention this on our page entitled “At after Where.”
>
> A few more:
> talk to/speak with

Interesting, but probably not a big issue with most people. Most people
understand the difference between “to” and “with.”

> I wish I was/I wish I were (use of subjunctive mood)
>
We have a fairly detailed page on the Subjunctive Mood.

Thank you for your thoughts.