Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

New York Times editorial today says:

The Bronx district attorney should be applauded for refusing to prosecute bad arrests that officers were unable to prove were warranted.

Should it be:

The Bronx district attorney should be applauded for refusing to prosecute bad arrests that officers were unable to prove where warranted.

share|improve this question

closed as general reference by FumbleFingers, Andrew Leach, coleopterist, Robusto, RegDwigнt Sep 27 '12 at 11:57

This question is too basic; it can be definitively and permanently answered by a single link to a standard internet reference source designed specifically to find that type of information.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

    
'Where' is a place - think of 'here' with a 'w' on the end. –  Roaring Fish Sep 27 '12 at 11:25
    
'where warranted' (or 'where X') is a phrase that can work in some circumstances, and almost works (but not really), but 'were' is correct here. It is very much a coincidence that the single letter change allows such a change in parsing (but coincidences happen all the time). To undo the ellipsis: "The officers were unable to prove that the bad arrests were warranted". –  Mitch Sep 27 '12 at 14:28

1 Answer 1

No. Were is the correct word, because there was no evidence the arrests were warranted.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.