It's a common little stumble, isn't it? That moment when you're crafting a sentence about the past, and you pause, wondering: was it 'was' or 'were'? This isn't just about grammar rules; it's about how we paint a picture of history, of collective experiences, and even of the sheer quantity of things.
Think back to a time when things felt different. Perhaps people were kinder, or maybe the world seemed a bit simpler. The reference material points out that when we talk about "people" in the past tense, and we're describing their state or nature, "were" is often the word. "People were friendly to him at that time," for instance. It makes sense, doesn't it? "People" is a plural noun, a collection of individuals, so it calls for the plural past tense of 'to be' – "were". It’s like saying a group of friends were at the party, not a single friend was at the party (unless you're talking about just one friend, of course).
But then, things get a little more nuanced. Sometimes, we're not talking about the people themselves, but about a quantity of people. This is where "the number of" comes into play, and it’s a classic grammar curveball. When the subject is "the number of people," the focus shifts to "number," which is singular. So, even if many people were involved, the sentence structure demands "was." For example, "The number of people who were killed or seriously injured was more than 400,000." It’s a bit counterintuitive, I know, but the "number" is the singular entity being discussed. Contrast this with "a number of people," which essentially means "many people," and then you'd use "were." It’s a subtle but crucial distinction.
We also see "were" used when we're talking about a collective noun that inherently implies plurality, like "hundreds of years ago." "Hundreds of years ago, people were much shorter." Here, "hundreds" clearly indicates a large, plural quantity, and "people" continues that plural sense. Similarly, in past continuous tenses, like "People were running in all directions at that moment," the "were" aligns with the plural subject "people" and the ongoing action.
And sometimes, the context just calls for "was" even with "people" if the sentence is structured to emphasize a singular, collective entity or a specific singular aspect. The example of "the Chinese peasantry was in hot water" illustrates this. While "peasantry" refers to a group, it can be treated as a singular collective noun in certain contexts, hence "was."
So, whether it's describing the general mood of a past era, the sheer scale of an event, or the ongoing actions of a group, the choice between "was" and "were" hinges on whether we're focusing on a singular quantity or a plural subject. It’s a small detail, but getting it right adds a layer of clarity and polish to our communication, making our past narratives ring true.
