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

Doug Fisher, a former AP news editor, teaches journalism at the University of South Carolina and can be reached at fisherdj@mailbox.sc.edu or 803-777-3315.