It’s not “which” that marks a nonrestrictive clause, it’s the comma. Open any novel, and you can find examples of “which” heading a restrictive clause. Many usage books accept this.

With your definite/indefinite article technique, should I say “For this vote, a two-third majority rule” or “A football team are staying in this hotel”? No.

I would make the collective noun singular or plural by the activity expressed by the verb. “At each mention of the candidate’s name, the audience applauds” would be singular because the members of the group are engaged in a collective behavior. “The poll shows that the audience disagree among themselves” is plural because the verb indicates the individual differences within the group. Therefore, I disagree that your example sentences beginning with “A” should be plural, since the majority and the group are both acting collectively.

Thanks! I just wrote that down so I can look it up as soon as I get a chance!

Justin-

If you don’t like it, don’t read it! You had plenty of warning from the title. Some of us find grammar fascinating!

As for the last one though, that on drives me crazy. The English/Irish refer to a team as a plural thing (”England are playing great football this season”). I realize the English invented English but this drives me nuts! To me it is a non-issue. A team was is and always will be ONE team, no matter if there are 2 people or 2000 people. A couple is always two but it is still just one couple. And certainly not to argue with you but I dont like your example “A couple of tenants own geckos”. I think the only reason it sounds acceptable is because the word tenants is plural. But you always have to ignore prepositional phrases. Anyway, just my two cents

It’s like finding living beings after a megadisaster!

I have tried to start a society for the preservation of the objective case of the pronouns, but it is so hard to fight television.

For those with long memories (another way of saying senior citizens), this was a topic on a Dick Cavett show years ago! Already in the 70s it was a problem.

Thank you so much!

That involves some juggling of word order and forming the contraction using a different form of ‘to be’, but since it’s a horrendously irregular verb that’s probably to be expected.

You would, however, never ever say “I aren’t”. You can only get away with it here because the I fits nicely at the end of the clause.