One in three people /is/... or one in three people /are/...?

I'd go with 'is' myself, 'one' being irresistibly singular - and this is
apparently what everyone does with the more elegant and even more
singular 'one person'.

<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=one+person+in+three+is%2Cone+person+in+three+are%2Cone+in+three+people+is%2Cone+in+three+people+are&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3>

(To write English well, look to the past.)

On 2023-11-14 08:08:51 +0000, Hibou said:

> One in three people /is/... or one in three people /are/...?
>
> I'd go with 'is' myself, 'one' being irresistibly singular - and this
> is apparently what everyone does with the more elegant and even more
> singular 'one person'.
>
> <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=one+person+in+three+is%2Cone+person+in+three+are%2Cone+in+three+people+is%2Cone+in+three+people+are&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3>
>
>
> (To write English well, look to the past.)

Your logic is impeccable, but logic can only take you so far, where
usage is concerned. I'd probably use "are".

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On 14/11/2023 09:20, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-11-14 08:08:51 +0000, Hibou said:
>
>> One in three people /is/... or one in three people /are/...?
>>
>> I'd go with 'is' myself, 'one' being irresistibly singular - and this
>> is apparently what everyone does with the more elegant and even more
>> singular 'one person'.
>>
>> <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=one+person+in+three+is%2Cone+person+in+three+are%2Cone+in+three+people+is%2Cone+in+three+people+are&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3>
>>
>> (To write English well, look to the past.)
>
> Your logic is impeccable, but logic can only take you so far, where
> usage is concerned. I'd probably use "are".
>
>

There is another supporting element to your "are" usage. The statement
"one in every three people is/are" is clearly a statistical statement,
based on a sample greater than 3. Hence, the answer would involve more
than one person (statistically). Hence "are".

"33% of people are ... supporters of X" is more correct than "33% of
people is... "

Peccable logic or what?

Le 14/11/2023 à 08:39, occam a écrit :
> On 14/11/2023 09:20, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-11-14 08:08:51 +0000, Hibou said:
>>
>>> One in three people /is/... or one in three people /are/...?
>>>
>>> I'd go with 'is' myself, 'one' being irresistibly singular - and this
>>> is apparently what everyone does with the more elegant and even more
>>> singular 'one person'.
>>>
>>> <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=one+person+in+three+is%2Cone+person+in+three+are%2Cone+in+three+people+is%2Cone+in+three+people+are&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3>
>>>
>>> (To write English well, look to the past.)
>>
>> Your logic is impeccable, but logic can only take you so far, where
>> usage is concerned. I'd probably use "are".
>
> There is another supporting element to your "are" usage. The statement
> "one in every three people is/are" is clearly a statistical statement,
> based on a sample greater than 3. Hence, the answer would involve more
> than one person (statistically). Hence "are".
>
> "33% of people are ... supporters of X" is more correct than "33% of
> people is... "
>
> Peccable logic or what?

But there is no 'one' in "33% of people are". ("Three people in ten
are..." is fine, of course.)

I take it you'd say:

"One in three people /are supporters/ of X"?

Would you also say:

"One person in three /are supporters/ of X"?

occam wrote:

> There is another supporting element to your "are" usage. The statement
> "one in every three people is/are" is clearly a statistical statement,
> based on a sample greater than 3. Hence, the answer would involve more
> than one person (statistically). Hence "are".

> "33% of people are ... supporters of X" is more correct than "33% of
> people is... "

One third of people is/are something?

I don't think that one choice is better than the other in either
example.

PS. I would prefer "of the people". Is that better or just different?

--
Bertel, Denmark

On 14/11/23 19:20, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-11-14 08:08:51 +0000, Hibou said:
>
>> One in three people /is/... or one in three people /are/...?
>>
>> I'd go with 'is' myself, 'one' being irresistibly singular - and
>> this is apparently what everyone does with the more elegant and
>> even more singular 'one person'.
>>
>> <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=one+person+in+three+is%2Cone+person+in+three+are%2Cone+in+three+people+is%2Cone+in+three+people+are&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3>

>> (To write English well, look to the past.)
>
> Your logic is impeccable, but logic can only take you so far, where
> usage is concerned. I'd probably use "are".

My usage seems to follow the mass/count distinction. I would say "one in
three people is", but "one-third of people are".

My mental image for "one in three" is a picture of the people in
question being organised into groups of three.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 14/11/23 20:32, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> occam wrote:
>
>> There is another supporting element to your "are" usage. The
>> statement "one in every three people is/are" is clearly a
>> statistical statement, based on a sample greater than 3. Hence, the
>> answer would involve more than one person (statistically). Hence
>> "are".
>
>> "33% of people are ... supporters of X" is more correct than "33%
>> of people is... "
>
> One third of people is/are something?
>
> I don't think that one choice is better than the other in either
> example.
>
> PS. I would prefer "of the people". Is that better or just
> different?

It's different, and I'd go as far as saying it's wrong for the scenario
introduced in this thread.

"One third of people" means one third of /all/ people.

"One third of the people" means one third of the people who have been
mentioned in the preceding context.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Le 14/11/2023 à 09:57, Peter Moylan a écrit :
> On 14/11/23 19:20, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-11-14 08:08:51 +0000, Hibou said:
>>>
>>> One in three people /is/... or one in three people /are/...?
>>>
>>> I'd go with 'is' myself, 'one' being irresistibly singular - and
>>> this is apparently what everyone does with the more elegant and
>>> even more singular 'one person'.
>>>
>>> <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=one+person+in+three+is%2Cone+person+in+three+are%2Cone+in+three+people+is%2Cone+in+three+people+are&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3>
>
>>> (To write English well, look to the past.)
>>
>> Your logic is impeccable, but logic can only take you so far, where
>> usage is concerned. I'd probably use "are".
>
> My usage seems to follow the mass/count distinction. I would say "one in
> three people is", but "one-third of people are".
>
> My mental image for "one in three" is a picture of the people in
> question being organised into groups of three.

Yes, that's the image. It's cutting large numbers down so they're more
easily envisaged.

One person in five has been a magician's assistant...

<https://www.cjoint.com/c/MKoko0Zg7Gf>

On 14/11/2023 10:07, Hibou wrote:
> Le 14/11/2023 à 08:39, occam a écrit :
>> On 14/11/2023 09:20, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On 2023-11-14 08:08:51 +0000, Hibou said:
>>>
>>>> One in three people /is/... or one in three people /are/...?
>>>>
>>>> I'd go with 'is' myself, 'one' being irresistibly singular - and this
>>>> is apparently what everyone does with the more elegant and even more
>>>> singular 'one person'.
>>>>
>>>> <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=one+person+in+three+is%2Cone+person+in+three+are%2Cone+in+three+people+is%2Cone+in+three+people+are&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3>
>>>>
>>>> (To write English well, look to the past.)
>>>
>>> Your logic is impeccable, but logic can only take you so far, where
>>> usage is concerned. I'd probably use "are".
>>
>> There is another supporting element to your "are" usage. The statement
>> "one in every three people is/are" is clearly a statistical statement,
>> based on a sample greater than 3. Hence, the answer would involve more
>> than one person (statistically). Hence "are".
>>
>>   "33% of people are ... supporters of X" is more correct than "33% of
>> people is... "
>>
>> Peccable logic or what?
>
> But there is no 'one' in "33% of people are". ("Three people in ten
> are..." is fine, of course.)
>
> I take it you'd say:
>
>   "One in three people /are supporters/ of X"?

Yes. (This is the original form of your question.)

>
> Would you also say:
>
>   "One person in three /are supporters/ of X"?
>

No. 'One person in three is a supporter of X" is more of a 'grouping'
effect, mentioned by Peter. If I selected three people from a large
football crowd, one of the three I'd expect to be a supporter of X. "One
person in three is..."

Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>One in three people /is/... or one in three people /are/...?

Formal grammar requires the verb to agree with the head
(subject) of the sentence ("One"), but sometimes, especially
in colloquial English, proximity agreement (or "proximity
concord") is used, in which the verb agrees with a noun or
pronoun that closely precedes it.

Some authors consider this ungrammatical, others say it is possible.

Peter Moylan wrote:

>> One third of people is/are something?
>>
>> I don't think that one choice is better than the other in either
>> example.
>>
>> PS. I would prefer "of the people". Is that better or just
>> different?
>
> It's different, and I'd go as far as saying it's wrong for the scenario
> introduced in this thread.

I can see that, but I still miss something. Would "of all people" be
better, worse, or the same? It satisfies my feeling. Maybe it's just
Danish influence where "af mennesker" is impossible.

--
Bertel, Denmark

On 14-Nov-23 9:57, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 14/11/23 19:20, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-11-14 08:08:51 +0000, Hibou said:
>>
>>> One in three people /is/... or one in three people /are/...?
>>>
>>> I'd go with 'is' myself, 'one' being irresistibly singular - and
>>> this is apparently what everyone does with the more elegant and
>>> even more singular 'one person'.
>>>
>>> <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=one+person+in+three+is%2Cone+person+in+three+are%2Cone+in+three+people+is%2Cone+in+three+people+are&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3>
>
>>> (To write English well, look to the past.)
>>
>> Your logic is impeccable, but logic can only take you so far, where
>> usage is concerned. I'd probably use "are".
>
> My usage seems to follow the mass/count distinction. I would say "one in
> three people is", but "one-third of people are".
>
> My mental image for "one in three" is a picture of the people in
> question being organised into groups of three.
>
I take "one in three"[1] here to be a phrase denoting a group of people,
hence "are" seems correct.

[1] Clearly there is a range of such expressions, one in ten, one in a
million etc. etc.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 15/11/23 01:07, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>>> One third of people is/are something?
>>>
>>> I don't think that one choice is better than the other in either
>>> example.
>>>
>>> PS. I would prefer "of the people". Is that better or just
>>> different?
>>
>> It's different, and I'd go as far as saying it's wrong for the
>> scenario introduced in this thread.
>
> I can see that, but I still miss something. Would "of all people" be
> better, worse, or the same? It satisfies my feeling. Maybe it's just
> Danish influence where "af mennesker" is impossible.

It's possible in English, and perhaps even the most common formulation.

Saying "of all people" is appropriate when you want to make it clear
that you're talking about the whole world, not just one country.
Usually, though, it's redundant.

"Of the people" works if the context has made it clear that you're
talking of a specific group of people. More commonly, though, you'd say
this only if it was accompanied by another qualifier. For example, "one
third of the people surveyed", or "of the people in Western Europe", or
"of the people who regularly attended cricket matches".

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 1:57:36 AM UTC-8, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 14/11/23 19:20, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > On 2023-11-14 08:08:51 +0000, Hibou said:
> >
> >> One in three people /is/... or one in three people /are/...?
> >>
> >> I'd go with 'is' myself, 'one' being irresistibly singular - and
> >> this is apparently what everyone does with the more elegant and
> >> even more singular 'one person'.
> >>
> >> <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=one+person+in+three+is%2Cone+person+in+three+are%2Cone+in+three+people+is%2Cone+in+three+people+are&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3>
>
> >> (To write English well, look to the past.)
> >
> > Your logic is impeccable, but logic can only take you so far, where
> > usage is concerned. I'd probably use "are".
> My usage seems to follow the mass/count distinction. I would say "one in
> three people is", but "one-third of people are".
>
> My mental image for "one in three" is a picture of the people in
> question being organised into groups of three.

I see an old sailor, about to accost one of three people strolling down the street.

bill

On 16/11/23 07:18, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 1:57:36 AM UTC-8, Peter Moylan wrote:

>> My mental image for "one in three" is a picture of the people in
>> question being organised into groups of three.
>
> I see an old sailor, about to accost one of three people strolling down the street.

I shot the albatross
But I did not shoot his deputy.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Le 15/11/2023 à 11:16, Dingbat a écrit :
> On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 1:38:57 PM UTC+5:30, Hibou wrote:
>>
>> One in three people /is/... or one in three people /are/...?
>>
>> I'd go with 'is' myself, 'one' being irresistibly singular - and this is
>> apparently what everyone does with the more elegant and even more
>> singular 'one person'.
>>
>> <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=one+person+in+three+is%2Cone+person+in+three+are%2Cone+in+three+people+is%2Cone+in+three+people+are&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3>
>>
>> (To write English well, look to the past.)
>
> That would show how others wrote, with no indication that they wrote well/
>
> 'One in every three' looks singular. 'One in three' is singular for the singular
> case of exactly 3 people, nonsensical for fewer than 3 and plural for more
> than 3. The wording usually implies many more than 3 people. I can't tell
> whether it can be numerically plural and still grammatically singular.

What, if anything, stops you applying your reasoning for 'one in three
people' to 'one person in three'?

On 15-Nov-23 23:34, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 16/11/23 07:18, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 1:57:36 AM UTC-8, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>>> My mental image for "one in three" is a picture of the people in
>>> question being organised into groups of three.
>>
>> I see an old sailor, about to accost one of three people strolling
>> down the street.
>
> I shot the albatross
> But I did not shoot his deputy.
>
Far safer to shoot the sun (at noon, obv.)

--
Sam Plusnet

On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 10:54:51 AM UTC-8, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 15-Nov-23 23:34, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 16/11/23 07:18, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 1:57:36 AM UTC-8, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >
> >>> My mental image for "one in three" is a picture of the people in
> >>> question being organised into groups of three.
> >>
> >> I see an old sailor, about to accost one of three people strolling
> >> down the street.
> >
> > I shot the albatross
> > But I did not shoot his deputy.
> >
> Far safer to shoot the sun (at noon, obv.)
>
Is the sextant still extant?

bill

On 16-Nov-23 19:29, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:
> On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 10:54:51 AM UTC-8, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 15-Nov-23 23:34, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 16/11/23 07:18, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 1:57:36 AM UTC-8, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>
>>>>> My mental image for "one in three" is a picture of the people in
>>>>> question being organised into groups of three.
>>>>
>>>> I see an old sailor, about to accost one of three people strolling
>>>> down the street.
>>>
>>> I shot the albatross
>>> But I did not shoot his deputy.
>>>
>> Far safer to shoot the sun (at noon, obv.)
>>
> Is the sextant still extant?

Surely, modern sentiment must engender a new term for it?

--
Sam Plusnet

On Friday or thereabouts, Sam Plusnet declared ...
> On 16-Nov-23 19:29, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 10:54:51 AM UTC-8, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>> On 15-Nov-23 23:34, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>> On 16/11/23 07:18, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 1:57:36 AM UTC-8, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> My mental image for "one in three" is a picture of the people in
>>>>>> question being organised into groups of three.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see an old sailor, about to accost one of three people strolling
>>>>> down the street.
>>>>
>>>> I shot the albatross
>>>> But I did not shoot his deputy.
>>>>
>>> Far safer to shoot the sun (at noon, obv.)
>>>
>> Is the sextant still extant?
>
> Surely, modern sentiment must engender a new term for it?

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

/dps "Mine's just a Davis (tm) plastic jobbie"

--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.

On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 11:52:01 AM UTC-7, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 16-Nov-23 19:29, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 10:54:51 AM UTC-8, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> >> On 15-Nov-23 23:34, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >>> On 16/11/23 07:18, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 1:57:36 AM UTC-8, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> My mental image for "one in three" is a picture of the people in
> >>>>> question being organised into groups of three.
> >>>>
> >>>> I see an old sailor, about to accost one of three people strolling
> >>>> down the street.
> >>>
> >>> I shot the albatross
> >>> But I did not shoot his deputy.
> >>>
> >> Far safer to shoot the sun (at noon, obv.)
> >>
> > Is the sextant still extant?
>
> Surely, modern sentiment must engender a new term for it?

Fucktant?

--
Jerry Friedman

Sam Plusnet wrote:

>>>>> I see an old sailor, about to accost one of three people strolling
>>>>> down the street.
>>>>
>>>> I shot the albatross
>>>> But I did not shoot his deputy.
>>>>
>>> Far safer to shoot the sun (at noon, obv.)
>>>
>> Is the sextant still extant?
>
> Surely, modern sentiment must engender a new term for it?

Due to inflation it is now known as a septant.

--
Bertel, Denmark

On 2023-11-18 00:22, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Sam Plusnet wrote:
>
>>>>>> I see an old sailor, about to accost one of three people strolling
>>>>>> down the street.
>>>>>
>>>>> I shot the albatross
>>>>> But I did not shoot his deputy.
>>>>>
>>>> Far safer to shoot the sun (at noon, obv.)
>>>>
>>> Is the sextant still extant?
>>
>> Surely, modern sentiment must engender a new term for it?
>
> Due to inflation it is now known as a septant.

"Anytwo for elevenis?"
~ Victor Borge

--
Will glass coffins be a success?
Remains to be seen.

lar3ryca wrote:

>>>> Is the sextant still extant?
>>>
>>> Surely, modern sentiment must engender a new term for it?
>>
>> Due to inflation it is now known as a septant.
>
> "Anytwo for elevenis?"
> ~ Victor Borge

He was actually in my mind. I really liked another one, but it is
specifically Danish and will flop if explained.

--
Bertel, Denmark

On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:49:32 PM UTC+5:30, lar3ryca wrote:
> On 2023-11-18 00:22, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> > Sam Plusnet wrote:
> >
> >>>>>> I see an old sailor, about to accost one of three people strolling
> >>>>>> down the street.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I shot the albatross
> >>>>> But I did not shoot his deputy.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Far safer to shoot the sun (at noon, obv.)
> >>>>
> >>> Is the sextant still extant?
> >>
> >> Surely, modern sentiment must engender a new term for it?
> >
> > Due to inflation it is now known as a septant.
> "Anytwo for elevenis?"
> ~ Victor Borge
>
That quote is in error.
Borge's inflated "Anytwo five elevennis?" deflates into regular
English as "Anyone for tennis?"
> --
I've read of an occasion when he called himself RCA Victor. Those
initials are not in his name. For that matter, Victor was not in his
original name either.