Wow, this is more interesting (and apparently more controversial) than I thought…
The problem, still, is that ‘one in four adults in the world is unable to read’ appears to be saying "we went out into the world and selected four adults; one of them couldn’t read - the generalisation is lost.
(this other part is IMHO or MPSIMS really): I’m having trouble finding a suitably punchy alternative; 25% is too abstract.
How about:
“One quarter of all adults in the world ___ unable to read”?
But now I’m even less certain what should go in there; ‘one’ quarter certainly seems singular, but rearranging it to : “of all adults in the world, one quarter ___ unable to read” seems to beg for ‘are’, since we’re not really talking about the quarter, but the adults that comprise it.
Cliffy, you’re wrong. You could expand the sentence to
One adult in four adults is unable to read.
And in that sentence, One adult is the subject, not adults. Now try to make a case that the expanded sentence above is somehow fundamentally different from the original; you just can’t.
You have removed the numerical modifier “one in four” and introduced “one adult” who simply wasn’t there before.
Think of it as “one in four adults in the world” as just being a different way of saying “1 and a half billion adults”. The subject remains the same; a number of adults that is most definitely plural.
Thank you. So elusive before, yet so obvious now you’ve said it.
What I really didn’t want to happen is for the audience to start arguing about whether it’s ‘is’ or ‘are’ and in doing so, completely fail to notice what it means.
“One adult in four adults in the world are unable to read.”
Regardless of whether you consider the subject of the sentence to be “adults”, “one”, or the implied “one [adult]”, given the context the subject to whom it is making reference is clearly a group of people, not an individual, hence the plural form of “to be”. One could interchange “25%”, “one quarter of”, “one fourth of”, “a quartern of”, or any other term indicating a ratio or percentage and all would demand the use of the plural form.
Now somebody please explain why the royals insist in referring to themselves in the plural/singular “Our Royal Person”, and why the English language doesn’t have gender-independent third-person singular abstract pronouns, leading to the annoying use of either “he or she”, “s/he”, or the abominable and ambiguous singular “their”.
What’s so odd about this thread is that we’ve had a number of threads on grammar and usage in which the question really was not clear cut and a case could be made for either side.
And this isn’t one of them.
This really is one of those rare schoolmarm, right or wrong, red pencil, high school English class rules that one should learn and apply.
Forget the “one adult”. The “one adult” does not exist and no one is talking about “one adult”. You are taking a part of a modifier and throwing away the rest as if they had nothing to do with it.
What is being talked about is (one in four) * adults of the world. That’s ¼ of all adults. Adults. Plural.
Good job. Sometimes a sentence that sounds right is grammatically wrong or vice-versa. The best solution is just to recast it.
I had to go through that with a semiconductor article I was writing. A single semiconductor chip, before being packaged, is called a “die.” Everyone in the semiconductor industry calles a group of them “die” as well. The populace at large, on the other hand, knows that the plural of “die” (a six-sided cube with pips on it) is “dice.” My options were:
Use “die” for the plural and look like I don’t know English grammar,
Use “dice” for the plural and look like I don’t know the semiconductor biz, or
Write the whole article without ever using the plural of “die.”
Recasting the sentence, however elegantly, is avoidant. By doing you, you avoid dealing with the problem of which verb–‘is’ or ‘are’–is correct in that sentence. It’s okay to do so if you’re composing the sentence, but if you’re copyediting the sentence, or approving it, or critiquing it, then it matters which verb is correct.
You can’t, with Cliffy, just say, “Whatever, dude. This un here looks mighty fine to me,” and walk away. Well, you can, but “This looks gooder to me” isn’t going to convince anyone who isn’t already leaning that way.
This sort of avoidant approach to “difficult” grammar problems sometimes kills perfectly good words, like “affect”–is it “How will this affect us?” or “How will this effect us?” Answer: Oh, who knows–let’s go with “impact.” Now, “How will this impact us?” is about the most awkward sentence I can think of, but it does have the virtue of not having to know which spelling to choose. And so the verb “affect” dies a painful death, because Lord knows we don’t want to have to remember how to spell, do we?
Exapno, there’s an understood “adults” in the prepositional phrase “in four.” Yes, it’s damned inelegant, which is why it’s understood and not explicit. But it’s there. Cf. “Four out of five recommend Trident.” That’s a perfectly valid formal English sentence, albeit one that has meaning only when the audience understands that there’s an elided “dentists” in there.
Well, anyway, I’m not going to convince those that won’t be convinced, and I’ve already convinced those that will be.
If you have a sentence that doesn’t include “adults,” then you don’t have to account for it. But as long as “adults” is in the sentence then it must be paid attention to. This is where diagramming of sentences plays a crucial role. Once you lay out the sentence to see the relationships, all the confusion goes away.
I agree that two subjects are being discussed in this thread. Rewriting sentences to eliminate confusion is - or should be - a standard part of every writer’s work habits. I’ve written entire books that are gender free (i.e., I’ve avoided making “he” the neutral pronoun) and ordinary readers would never notice because I worked to make the writing invisible.
But there is also the issue lucidly discussed by pseudotriton ruber ruber, a bastion of intelligent discourse in this thread. Rewriting sentences because one doesn’t know basic English grammar and, worse, because one expects one’s audience to be equally ignorant is a death spiral for dumbing down the language.
So if the sentence were reworded so that the second rather than the first “adult[s]” was understood, you would still say “One adult in four are unable to read”?
Cliffy, you’re making a wonderful argument against yourself. In the OP’s sentence, the word “adults” ISN’T understood after the word “four”–it’s right there. BUT–the singular noun “adult” IS understood after “one” and is the subject of the sentence, making the verb singular. You seem to understand the form of the argument all right, but you need to apply it to the actual sentence.
You seem to believe that this is a matter of majority voting, but you could argue “elegance” and “looks right” all day and convince thousands of Dopers, but this is GQ: there is a grammatical choice to make here, and only one answer is the correct one.
Look at the example you gave: “Four out of five recommend Trident.” Actually I think the word “dentists” is in the original sentence, so it should be “Four out of five dentists recommend Trident.” Now suppose it was “One out of five [dentists] recommend Trident.” You would never say “One recommend Trident,” right? That’s obvious a subject-verb disagreement, so you’d say “one recommends trident.” So if you insert enough understood nouns into that sentence would the s/v agreement change? (“One dentist out of five dentists recommend Trident” or “One dentist out of five dentists recommends Trident”?)
I am editing, rather than composing, however, we’ve got to consider more than just what is right; this thread alone is sufficient evidence that the is/are thing is distracting whether I get it right or wrong - the purpose of the slide is to communicate; other slides follw it in fairly quick succession - if people fail to notice them because they’re pondering whether or not it should have been ‘is’ instead of ‘are’ (or vice versa - and whichever way I do it, some people are going to stick on it), then the whole thing is pointless and I might as well just show them a blank screen.
The purpose of the presentation is to inform the audience about needs in developing countries, not to educate them about grammar by example.
