No | Pattern | Freq | Relations |
---|---|---|---|
1 | was [vb pp] that the [adj] | 252 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
2 | was agreed that the [adj] | 24 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
3 | was [vb pp] that the [num] | 22 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
4 | was told that the [adj] | 19 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
5 | was [vb pp] that the new | 17 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
6 | was announced that the [adj] | 17 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
7 | was reported that the [adj] | 17 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
8 | was [vb pp] that the [num ord] | 17 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
9 | was [vb pp] that the new | 17 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
10 | was suggested that the [adj] | 13 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
11 | was felt that the [adj] | 13 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
12 | was found that the [adj] | 13 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
13 | was held that the [adj] | 13 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
14 | was argued that the [adj] | 12 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
15 | was [vb pp] that the [det] | 12 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
16 | was assumed that the [adj] | 11 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
17 | was [vb pp] that the [adj -est] | 11 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
18 | was decided that the [adj] | 10 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
19 | was believed that the [adj] | 10 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
20 | was [vb pp] that the two | 9 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
21 | was [vb pp] that the two | 9 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
22 | was estimated that the [adj] | 9 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
23 | was [vb pp] that the best | 8 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
24 | was said that the [adj] | 8 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
25 | was [vb pp] that the good | 8 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
26 | was [vb pp] that the main | 7 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
27 | was revealed that the [adj] | 7 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
28 | was [vb pp] that the main | 7 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
29 | was [vb pp] that the old | 7 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
30 | was [vb pp] that the only | 7 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |