One in five of us is (are?) confused
by this
By Doug Fisher
What do I do when the rules of grammar tell me to say something
that seems contrary to what I was thinking I wanted to
say?
Consider this recent sentence
from a national newspaper:
Of the economists surveyed,
38 percent expect robust growth while one in five say it
is likely the numbers will not
be as good as expected.
Should that be one in five
say – or says?
These sorts of things touch
off debates among copy editors, as a similar question did
recently on one discussion board.
The usage and grammar books – “the rules” – call
for the singular. But then there are those who say wait
a minute, we should take into account the sense of meaning.
Neither side should be discounted.
The usage and grammar books
are clear on the matter. Bryan A. Garner, a widely cited
expert on modern American usage,
comes down firmly on the side of one ... says: “In
this construction, a singular verb is required, but writers
frequently get it wrong.”
The 1993 Columbia Guide
to Standard American English is likewise succinct: “One of any number is still one
and requires a singular verb.”
But did the writer really
mean “one” in that
sentence, especially when contrasted with the earlier figure
of 38 percent? The writer really was using the one in five
to express a larger concept, and here is where the sense-of-meaning
camp chimes in. It is the meaning that should govern, they
say, not just the rule. Bill Walsh, a copy desk chief at
The Washington Post who has gained respect in such matters
through two books and a widely viewed Web site on style,
usage and grammar matters, is among those who argue for
this interpretation.
I still favor the singular,
reasoning that the expression is really shorthand for “one (copy editor) in (every)
five is confused by this” and that “is” just
sounds better with that interpretation.
In the past, that would
be disposed of and safely put away, to be revisited occasionally
just to reassure ourselves
of our correctness. But that was before television news
magazines, ubiquitous cable TV news, the Internet and a
time when many young people now learn their English from
those sources and conversation, not from reading. We ignore
the growing concept of “write what I mean, not what
the rules say I should say” at our peril.
Grammar has an obscure corner
for this. It’s called
notional agreement, notional concord, or, if you really
want to sound highfalutin, synesis – the idea that
agreement should follow meaning, not necessarily form.
With some collective nouns, we do this already, despite
the prescription that most should take the singular verb.
We say “the police are,” though the police
can arguably be an institution. “A handful” certainly
sounds singular, yet we may acceptably write, “Among
the farmers, a lucky handful are prosperous.” Number
and percentage are among the words that shift back and
forth depending on sense. So do some academic subjects
such as economics and politics. Couple usually is better
when coupled with a plural verb.
It grates, but especially
in sports we commonly hear things such as “South Carolina is looking for their third
win.” We’re not talking about the school, but
about a handful of guys out to win a football game, proponents
would argue. For now, let’s not accept that one.
The British have taken this
to a high art, preferring the plural in many cases such
as “the team are despondent
after yesterday’s loss” and “the committee
are split.”
The problem of notional
agreement, of course, is that your notion might not be
mine, and I might be of a notion to
fight about it.
This rules-versus-meaning
debate is reflected in the increasing heft of our stylebooks.
At one time, language was learned
more through writing and reading, and those followed “the
rules.” We had more shared understanding of what
was “right.” Now, such matters increasingly
must be triangulated and legislated, often with extensive
debate and argument.
This is a good thing, in
some ways. It means our language is living and vibrant.
It doesn’t mean we must agree
with all changes if our arguments are rational and well-reasoned.
But it does mean we must think about what we are doing
and stay alert to what is happening around us, not become
editing automatons.
