I rest my case.
No, the generalisation is not lost. You’re changing the grammatical circumstance of the sentence by using a proportion instead of raw figures. A fraction is, in essence, a kind of metaphor. You don’t literally mean “one,” but that’s what you have chosen as the subject of your sentence, so that’s what must be agreed with.
It’s just like a collective noun. A “team” is always singular, even if you are implying more than one person.
Unless you’re British. Then it can be singular or plural, depending on context, but usually plural.
Yes, well, a lot of English-speakers treat such collective nouns as plural, and would write “The team are …”, especially if what comes after the verb is plural: “The team are three men and five women.” Do a Google phrase search on “team are”, and you get about 1,660,000 hits. Opinions do differ on this one.
Personally, I think it’s an indication that the text was awkwardly phrased from the start - language is supposed to be about the efficient exchange of information, in my opinion; standing by an awkward - albeit grammatically correct - statement just to assert a point of procedure (when this assertion will simply fail to achieve its objective, at the same time as reducing overall clarity) seems silly.
Maybe changing it does all contribute to the erosion of standards (although some of the standards we’re talking about cherishing and upholding were ultimately arrived at by erosion anyway), but we could go to the opposite extreme where we stubbornly preserve the formal structure at the great expense of the content.
I’d be quite happy for this one to move to GD (where I shall continue to participate as a bemused observer) if the mods feel that is appropriate.
This is not the same. Here it is a single, non-existant person that has been created in order to convey an average salary.
In ‘one in four adults’ there is no invented non-existent person. There is no ‘one’ being discussed. What would be comparible to your example is; “The average adult (in the world) is one quarter illiterate”, but obviously this is not a suitable expression. Illiteracy is not something we can divide and average like a sum of money.
What you’re doing is like taking “¼ of adults are illiterate” and asking where the 1 is, and who were the other three that made up this 4 you can see mentioned. You cannot split up the fraction, or the expression “one in four”, in this way and expect it to mean the same thing.
existent. comparable. :smack:
I’ve been thinking about this because it raises an important issue. While there can, in the abstract, be problems with overpedantic language my conclusion is that using grammatically correct language should never a hurdle or a barrier for the audience. Readers have an unconscious expectation that whatever they read is going to be correct. The notion of authorial authority is beaten into everyone during school. If you put that correct sentence into your presentation everybody will just accept it as correct and go on to the next sentence.
However, incorrect grammar will stop anyone who is familiar with language. There’s an eye stumble involved, and the reader will go back to see what’s wrong.
This isn’t the same thing as saying that any grammatically correct sentence will always be the right one for any particular piece of writing. But you shouldn’t need to worry that writing correct English is a stumbling block for readers. Just the opposite.
While I think I know what the correct structure is, I decided to consult a few writer’s guides for a cite. The most appropriate cite I found was:
When the structure may cause confusion, it’s best to recast the sentence."
This issue is not is/are, the issue is does the sentence “One in four adults in the world are unable to read” most effectively convey the intended meaning?
Since we’ve now had 67 posts of argument, the answer to that question is no. Therefore, the “proper” construction is:
One in four adults in the world can not read.
I’m not about to count them all, but I would think several of those hits are of constructions like “the players on the team are…”, which don’t quite support your point.
More on the plurality of teams: the great arbiter of British English, the BBC, clearly thinks (or think, depending on your brand of English) that “Leicestershire” is plural:
Of course, they are talking about the cricket team, not the county. The county Leicestershire is singular in British English.
One quarter is illiterate. Two quarters are illiterate.
One quarter of the children have gone.
One quarter of the cake has gone.
And two quarters is one half.
FWIW, a colleague of mine is a grammar teacher.
She instantly said that the sentence should read
“One on four adults in the world IS unable to read”
She even diagrammed it for me 
“One” is the subject. “In adults” (four) and “In world”(the) both modify “One”. “Is unable” is the verb…“to read” modifies the verb.
(I hope I did that right…wish I could draw it out )
No. One quarter of adults are illiterate. One quarter of the adult population is illiterate. Fractions take singular verbs when modifying singular nouns, and plurar verbs when modifying plural nouns.
I was having this same mental argument with myself yesterday after reading “A plethora of cars are available.” It seems like it should say ‘is’, although I’m sure that’s wrong.
But there is. I’m taking a hypothetical four people to be representative of the whole population and making a statement regarding one of them. The reader extrapolates from this what it means concerning the population as a whole, but that doesn’t influence the grammatical construction.
No I’m not, because “One in four” (a sampling from a total) and “One quarter” (a fraction of a total) are not identical concepts.
I think there’s an eye stumble either way, because they’re both awkward juxtapositions of words. Far from accepting it and moving on, I fear that a few people would turn to their neighbours and murmur “That should say ‘are’”, then a debate will break out (just as it has here) and the effort will be wasted. In public presentations, it is necessary to be more than merely technically correct - I suspect we could formulate some sentences that were grammatically perfect, yet abominable upon the ears.
cannot.
I don’t know much about grammar (but I know what I like), so let’s turn this into a math problem…
“One in four” or “(whole number) in (larger whole number)” is a really inaccurate way to describe the information you want to convey. It’s a somewhat literary way to express a percentage used by people who don’t want their writing to become too dry with numbers. Unless you are writing about a relatively small group of people (“6 out of 9 city councilpersons voted against the measure”), nobody expects it to be accurate. Consequently the reader knows that you are generalizing a quantity – “one in four” could mean 23%, 24%, 25%, 26%, 27%, or any decimal in between.
The fact is that when each of us reads “one in four” we automatically convert it into a mental picture of a fraction of a whole. Sometimes it’s an easy percentage, i.e. “one in four” means approximately 25%, and sometimes it’s not – “one in seven” is about 14%, but you can easily picture “one in seven” as a fraction of a whole.
Now according to my Harbrace Handbook, when you use words like “some” or “most” (which are equivalent stand-ins for fractions of a whole as far as I’m concerned) as a sentence’s subject, you use a plural verb when the subject refers to a group, i.e. “Some of the world’s adults are illiterate”, and a singular verb when refering to a single thing, i.e. “Some of the pizza has jalapenos on it”.
So in our mind’s eye “one in four adults” is equivalent to “a quarter of all adults”, which grammatically is like saying “some of all adults”, which requires a plural verb.
My point: Using “one in four adults” to describe a group of billions is really an awful choice to convey the information you want to convey. Just say “about 25%” for God’s sake and stop trying to be all literary…