One of my colleagues came up with the following question concerning verb (of a relative pronoun)-antecedent agreement. Here’s her question:

Jim is one of the boys that swim (or swims?) well.

The problem here is whether the verb “swim” should agree with boys, or with one. Does an antecedent by definition refer to the word immediately preceding the relative pronoun (as that in this case)? Does it make any differences to the verb in a relative clause if we place a modifier, like “one of the” here?

Thanks for all the help!

Jim is one of the boys that swim (or swims?) well.

Good question, since I have come across examples about which I’m unsure also.

Personally, I think a relative pronoun doesn’t have to refer back to the noun immediately preceeding it; however, most of the time this is where the antecedent is situated.

The antecedent is generally whatever makes most sense to the reader. So in other words, the writer can decide which noun he or she chooses to be the antecedent, and more often than not, it makes no difference which he chooses.

I can’t think of a sentence now. But I have seen examples where the antecedent is definitely the noun in the prep phrase.

In this case, however, I believe the antecedent is ‘one.’

Jim is one of the boys that swim (or swims?) well.

First of all, use the relative pronoun who, not that, when referring to people.

The correct sentence is, “Jim is one of the boys who swims well.” The “one” requires the verb to swim to be singular.

The medicines contain slight trace amounts of cocaine, which is an unavoidable byproduct of coca leaves.

From what you have said, Sapparis, are you suggesting that ‘amounts’ is the antecedent here too?

It is obviously not amounts that is unavoidable by products.

And, although ‘who’ is better and more formal, I would’ve thought ‘that’ is fine in less formal context.

The medicines contain slight trace amounts of cocaine, which is an unavoidable byproduct of coca leaves.

Amounts is not the antecedent. Cocaine is. 

If the sentence were “The medicines contain slight trace amounts of cocaine, which are unavoidable byproducts of coca leaves,” then amounts would be the antecedent.

My point was that one of those boys is still one, just as the phase some of the boys or a few of the boys is more than one, mathematically and grammatically.

The use of that instead of who when referring to people is (I think) the result of not knowing whether to use who or whom—admittedly difficult in speech—and that fact that whom in speech sounds a bit fancy.

However, if who is correct, why use that and run the risk of sounding uneducated?

My point was that one of those boys is still one, just as the phase some of the boys or a few of the boys is more than one, mathematically and grammatically.

This doesn’t say that is wrong to use one or the other however.

And yes, I personally write with ‘who’ in this case, but in speech I may use ‘that’. And sometimes writers want to have a more conversational tone. If you are an established author, then people will not see the use of ‘that’ in this way as uneducated, but more as a crafty technique employed to perhaps build a rapport with a younger audience.

This doesn’t say that is wrong to use one or the other however.

Not sure what you mean. One of the other (is/are) or one or the other (who/that)?

(is is correct. are is incorrect.)

And yes, I personally write with ‘who’ in this case, but in speech I may use ‘that’. And sometimes writers want to have a more conversational tone. If you are an established author then people will not see the use of ‘that’ as uneducated, but more as a crafty technique employed to perhaps build a rapport with a younger audience.

I guess I’m just old fashioned. I’ll stick with who.