Here’s the thing–you did get slapped down, big-time, by me and by Exapno Mapcase and maybe by other people who work professionally with words. We told you the definitive answer to the question you were asking, but because other people intruded their wrong-headed thoughts into the thread, you got the impression that it was an open question. It’s not. The verb you were asking about is “is.” That is the answer to your GQ, and you can take it to the bank.
If you choose to use the wrong verb anyway, it’s still a free country: ignore us. If you choose to re-draft the sentence, because you think the right answer looks funny: again, go right ahead. But please don’t pretend you didn’t get a clear definitive answer to your question, because you did.
As to the math stuff: I was comically trying to point out that if 92% of usage experts doesn’t impress someone, then neither will a higher percentage of usage experts either. In the example I chose, that higher percentage was virtually unanimous, as the “Does .99999~ = 1.0?” discussions have shown. Again, striving for wit, obviously lost on some.
It’s not people (plural). It’s a (one) (single) group of people. A jar can contain 1000 marbles but the jar is still singular.
You would say “the flock of birds is flying” not “are flying” despite the fact that there is more than one bird.
The phrase is equivelant to “one adult out of four adults”, with the one adult being the subject. Even if you call this a fraction, it’s still implied that it’s one group of adults out of four. You wouldn’t say “One adults out of four adults” even though it’s refering to a group that has potentially more than one member.
Listen. I am very well familiar with AP Style, Chicago Manual of Style, APA Style, MLA style, Blue Book legal citation style, etc., and have worked professionally as a copy editor. I find your attitude, frankly, a bit condescending. I’m not sure anyone is arguing with you what is considered the formally correct answer to this question. I am saying, though, that this is not absolutely cut-and-dry like your non sequitor 0.99999… = 1 sidetrack. In a panel of expert mathematicians, 100% will agree that 0.9999… = 1. There is absolutely no grey area in the matter.
With language, there is, hence the 8% dissenting vote by a panel of experts. And I have already given you the logical reasons for it, and they instinctively make sense to many speakers of the English language.
Let me reiterate: it is incorrect to use the plural verb in formal American English in this case. I am not convinced that it is in any way incorrect in casual speech, as there are compelling arguments to be made for why plural verb agreement is the more logical of the two choices.
Zoe – “Team” is technically singular in British English, just like it is in American English. If it weren’t, what would “teams” be? Double plural? “Team” is a singular collective noun–it’s just that the British will use the plural noun to agree with a collective noun. Not always, though. It depends on context. For example, British usage would dictate: “My team are doing well this season,” but “A soccer team has 11 players on the field.”
When I originally quoted the 92% figure, I included a link to the membership list of the Usage Panel. It is not composed solely of grammarians. There is a smattering of humanities professors, physicists, poets, and government officials. The fact that only one in eight disagrees is suprisingly close to unanimity. Even the sentence His tooth ached so bad he could not sleep, which sounds horribly, horribly wrong, was accepted by 8% of the panel.
To you. Yes, I know it’s “badly.” No, I wouldn’t use it in a formal context. But to me, it doesn’t grate on my ears. I think “bad” is one of those words that is on the cusp of being both an adverb and a adjective. I don’t see any problem with this. It’s a very typical construction around these parts. I looked up the Usage Panel before. It’s about 185 educated people from various walks of life, but all people that could be considered well educated. To me, it just goes to show you that there can be intelligent differences of opinion on grammatical matters. I will, of course, defer to the stylebook that my publication follows. It doesn’t mean that I don’t think there are good arguments to be made for these grammatical “irregularities.”
Let us please put to rest the myth of the American Heritage Usage Panel.
The Panel is nothing more or less than a marketing tool used to distinguish the AH dictionary from its competitors. Members only qualifications for being on the panel were that they a) have a well-known name or suitably impressive title and b) were willing to fill out a questionnaire.
And they were a usage panel, not a grammar panel. There is a huge difference between the two. If you are familiar with writers at all, you should know that most writers have no better grasp of formal English grammar than any other set of educated professionals. They do have opinions on usage, however: firm, resolute, and totally idiosyncratic opinions.
I’ve been a professional writer for thirty years and I happen to be more interested in reading about words and language than most writers I know. I guarantee that I know as much or more about the fiddly details of English history, usage, grammar, and writing than half the panel. I have never been impressed by the AH usage panel, except as a guide to what the conventional wisdom was at any time about the formal acceptance of a usage. The panel is notorious for being several years behind the rest of the world in approval of a usage; not surprising even if one ignores the time lag between the administration of the questionnaire and the much later reading of their results in a several-years old dictionary. AH has also reissued the questionnaire several times since the dictionary first came out in the 1960s. Most usages gained acceptance with each iteration. Hopefully went the other way, a good indication of the valuelessness of the panel.
So when it comes to checking a piece of English grammar, I ignore the AH entirely in favor of writers who put out books that are designed for the purpose. All the ones I’ve checked agree on the singularity of “one” in the type of sentence under question. If anyone can find even one exception I’d be interested in seeing it. But quoting the AH usage panel for support on the subject of English grammar will get people absolutely nowhere.
Yeah, pseudotriton ruber ruber is being condescending. I pointed that out, too. He is, however, entirely correct in this case.
I know. This is a word thread, not a number thread, but 92% isn’t one in eight. It’s one in 12-1/2.
Great comment, Exapno! Most of us (writers, that is) do know what we don’t know, as it were. For example, I have a good grasp of current grammatical rules and usage, but I know enough to run for help on British English, urban street slang, or medical jargon. Writers tend to be both pedantic and bullheaded. This is true. But most of the usage arguments I’ve had with other writers have been related to shifting usage (I will not write “thru,” dammit) or jargon, not core grammatical issues like this one.
Well, I don’t think we disagree, then. I never said p.r.r. was incorrect. I have backed the recommended usage from my very first post, because it is clearly correct in formal grammar. I would correct it if it came across the copy desk when I worked as a copy editor.
However, I’m also willing to bet good money that there are countless examples of established and eminent writers using the plural in cases like this because it is more natural for many speakers of English. I just don’t think the issue is as immutable as some of you seem to think. I don’t think the logic used to justify its use is the only correct logic. I think the alternative is equally, if not moreso, logical.
I only begrudingly use the singular in these cases. The main reason I don’t like it is for the reasons set out in the OP: it doesn’t sound right.
I’d be curious in a random sampling of English speakers which variation sounds more natural and grammatical to them, because how it sounds to the casual user of the language is just as important as what we mavens may think. If the construction causes enough people to stumble, then we should rethink what the “correct” construction should be. Perhaps you will disagree on the utility of such an exercise.