Minister Blair, may I introduce President Jar-Jar.
Not in American English, no. But in British English you can certainly say “The group are performing tonight at Hammersmith Palais” or whatever.
You don’t have to go looking for flaws in logic. Like I said before, language does not necessarily follow clear-cut logical rules. Obviously, enough people feel that using the plural verb after a “one in x” construction seems instinctual. That’s enough to convince me that the construction is linguistically logical. Just like “I ain’t got no money” is linguistically logical to me, the so-called “illogic” of the double negative be damned.
Once again, I’m not advocating the use of the plural verb in the OP’s construction in formal writing. However, I would not be surprised if in the next 50 years the preference eventually falls to the plural verb, and there’s nothing inherently illogical about that.
Nope. I mean exactly what I said; “enough people”. Not most. Which rather makes the rest of your post an exercise in straw man destruction.
But your examples differ in one important point. The first creates a notional group to discuss, the latter contains a ratio and has no such group. They are therefore grammatically different.
It’s already been pointed out that UK English and American English differ in regard to collective nouns. So maybe the differences here are equally grounded in this.
Very good 
Ringo doesn’t count.
Well, that sorta leaves your interpretation of how many is “enough” open wide enough to make one of my other silly notions accurate: “grammar is whatever I want it to be”; now, if that’s your position, we can discuss it, and if that’s not your position, please clarify.
There’s a fallacy here, believing that there is a clear distinction between “good grammar” and “poor grammar”. As this thread shows, there is a grey area in between, where people disagree.
Where stuff falls in that grey area depends on various things, including how many native English speakers follow the practice, how many “experts” (however you define them) support the practice, and how many people are offended by the practice (rather than just viewing it as a matter on which people can legitimately disagree.
In addition, there are national differences. British people are likely to say “Leicestershire are a cricket team”, while at least some Americans will claim that “The New York Jets is a football team.”
I’m not so sure about that last example. I don’t know of any Americans who would use the singular verb with the obviously plural “Jets”. But who knows.
More likely would be something like “The Miami Heat is a basketball team,” but even there I think the plural usage is more common. In American English, the clearest difference between it and English usage would be in city names:
For example:
“Miami’s doing well this season” or “Detroit is in danger of being eliminated this Saturday.” British usage would generally use the plural when referring to teams by the city name.
No, what this thread shows is that you can find people on a message board who will argue a mistaken proposition. That’s why I likened it to the 0.9999~ thread. You surely wouldn’t argue that because people kept disagreeing with those who understood the math properly that a “grey area” existed. This is as much a black and white issue. It doesn’t matter how stubbornly wrong people insist upon being. That doesn’t change the correctness of this particular piece of grammar.
Or you could look instead on the massive, overwhelming flood of people putting apostrophe’s [sic] in plural’s [sic]. You can find million’s [sic] of example’s [sic] everywhere you look, and even a number of thread’s [sic] on this Board decrying the idiocy of these numbskull’s [sic]. And I know for a fact you can find poster’s [sic] committing this atrocity in any number of thread’s [sic].
But none of that repetitious wrongness, no matter how many million’s [sic] of time’s [sic] these idiot’s [sic] commit this solecism, it remains wrong, and does not create a “grey area.”
This is not at all like the 0.99999~ thread. Once again. That’s math. That has irrefutable logic to it. Language does not. If “The team are doing well” is permissible grammar, then I see no reason why “One in four Americans are idiots” is not.
I’m not saying that anything goes in formal language. There are certainly grammatical and stylistic precedents we must follow for effective communicaiton. But I honestly do think that the case in point does actually have grey areas. And very logicially so, as has been explained by several posters. The construction is inadvisable in standard formal written American English. However, to claim it’s a black or white issue is factually incorrect. Even by your site, 8% of the Usage Panel seems to disagree. The fact that there is any dissent on the matter in a panel of experts implies that the matter is, in fact, grey. It’s not like pluralizing with apostrophes, which is clearly misusage (except in certain cases, like numbers or single letters, where it is permissible).
And if only 0.99999~ % of the Usage Panel agreed, you’d still be able to make the claim that there was not universal agreement, so we have a grey area.
Ok, are you deliberately being obtuse? I added the “out of all” for emphasis, but since you are using that to support your point, let’s go back to the OP’s actual sentence:
One in four adults in the world is unable to read
Now then, in that sentence, where is it stated that there are more than four adults in the world? It’s not in that sentence at all. You assume it because you happen to know that there are more than four adults in the world, but that sentence, in and of itself, does not tell you that. The only information in the text is that “one in four” somethings “is unable to read”. You add the hidden assumption that, in this case there are more than four “somethings”, because you happen to know that when the “somethings” in question are “adults in the world”, there are more than four.
Can I say that again, or are three repetitions enough? Ok, since we’re dealing with fours here: The strict text of the sentence does not indicate whether or not there are more than four total. So, as I said, the only way your argument can hold water is if you apply the rules of grammar based on information not in the text itself. That’s just wrong.
Ain’t my site. Or my cite, either.
Grammar is not, as you think, the rules of a language. Rather, it is the description of the rules of the language. British English and American English may - in fact, do - have different grammars. “The team are…” is good British grammar, but it is not good American grammar.
Sorry. I thought it was your citation.
We are in agreement. I do not claim grammar to be the rules of a language. In fact, my arguments center around descriptive grammar. I may be confusing your point with someone else’s. Are you not saying that the singular verb is the one and indisputably correct usage?
If 0.1% of the Usage Panel agreed? I would admit the area is not as a grey as one in which almost 1 in 10 agreed with the plural verb.
My point is simply this: using the plural verb in the OP’s example is not illogical, nor is it unlikely that this usage may one day supplant the singular verb in preference. I have never advocated using anything but the singular verb in formal writing. However, in casual speech or writing, I don’t see any problem with the plural.
Does 0.999999~ have a remainder of .01?
What are you on about? I have no clue. I’m not discussing repeating numbers here. What do you mean by “remainder” in that context, anyway? Talk about a non sequitor.
One in 6,548 SD members (namely me) is moving on. Original OP’s question has been answered and creditable cites have been given.
And .9999… =1. Let’s cut that in the bud right now.
See, in this sort of case I would argue that the singular verb is certainly preferred, as there is no possibility of "notional agreement with a plural subject as you’re literally talking about one person, not a certain percentage of people. You still can make an argument for the plural by pleading proximal agreement, but I feel proximal agreement is more an error of misanalysis, while notional agreement is perfectly logical and acceptable.
I honestly didn’t expect it to go on as long as this or become as emotive - I just expected to get slapped down and maybe offered a suitably eloquent alternative wording. Funny how things turn out really.
It’s ridiculous to compare this argument - sure, people have dug themselves into their positions in the same way, but matters of maths would still be as they are if there had never been any humans. Language isn’t based upon the same kind of foundation.
The rule to keep in mind is that the subject must agree with the verb in number. In British English the word team is considered plural and requires a plural verb. In America, team is considered singular and requires a singular verb.
In the second sentence, One is the subject of the sentence. In both countries it is, of course singular and requires the singular verb.
Prescriptive grammarians give up turf from time to time and they serve a good purpose. So do descriptive grammarians.