"Three-quarters" singular?
John A. Green
Manchester, UK), Sophie Barber wrote in an article on One2One jobs:
'The UK mobile phone market is reaching saturation point because
almost three-quarters of the population now owns a mobile phone.'
So is "owns" correct? Is 'three-quarters' not the plural of
'three-quarter' when it does not apply to footballers?
John
**Any direct replies to <jag AT quista DOT net> not to scotland.com
address, as this is rarely read.
--
John A Green
Leigh Lancashire
Polar
wrote:
>In yesterday's Daily Telegraph (5 Nov 2001, on p32, printed in
>Manchester, UK), Sophie Barber wrote in an article on One2One jobs:
>'The UK mobile phone market is reaching saturation point because
>almost three-quarters of the population now owns a mobile phone.'
>
>So is "owns" correct? Is 'three-quarters' not the plural of
>'three-quarter' when it does not apply to footballers?
>John
You're right; strictly speaking, it should be "...now own..."
but good luck finding the correct usage. Probably three-quarters of
the writing population would use "owns".
(Notice sly evasion of need to decide on sing./pl verb.)
--
Polar
Robert Lieblich
And they'd be as right as the other quarter. And not just because
the majority rules.
We already did this at great length with respect to "One out of four
Germans ... ," although I think a lot of that was on, or crossposted
to, AUE. I am not trying to provoke a recrudescence.
[ ... ]
Mark Wallace
"John A. Green" <j.g...@scotland.com> wrote in message
news:3be7ffd...@209.133.64.75...
> In yesterday's Daily Telegraph (5 Nov 2001, on p32, printed in
> Manchester, UK), Sophie Barber wrote in an article on One2One
jobs:
> 'The UK mobile phone market is reaching saturation point because
> almost three-quarters of the population now owns a mobile phone.'
>
> So is "owns" correct? Is 'three-quarters' not the plural of
> 'three-quarter' when it does not apply to footballers?
Two points:
1) How can less than one be plural?
2) Look under 'numerical determiners' in a good grammar book.
3) Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Three-quarters of *it* _is_ less than one.
Three-quarters of *them* _are_, or can be, plural.
'The population' is an 'it', not a 'them'.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
Old Spice -- The Stupidest Story Ever Written
(and the second-best selling e-book in history)
The first volume is now FREE!
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/os/freebie.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
George Hardy
> In yesterday's Daily Telegraph (5 Nov 2001, on p32, printed in
> Manchester, UK), Sophie Barber wrote in an article on One2One jobs:
> 'The UK mobile phone market is reaching saturation point because
> almost three-quarters of the population now owns a mobile phone.'
>
> So is "owns" correct?
Yes.
> Is 'three-quarters' not the plural of 'three-quarter' when it does
> not apply to footballers?
Of what?!? One quarter, two quarters.
Quantities which are taken as a unit are often singular in English.
I might even say generally. Do you need to write a letter of
apology to the proofreaders of the Daily Telegraph?
GFH
Mark Wallace
"Rainy Mokle" <rainy...@GoFor21.com> wrote in message
news:3bed6cbc...@news.mco.bellsouth.net...
> j.g...@scotland.com (John A. Green) wrote:
>
> >In yesterday's Daily Telegraph (5 Nov 2001, on p32, printed in
> >Manchester, UK), Sophie Barber wrote in an article on One2One
jobs:
> >'The UK mobile phone market is reaching saturation point because
> >almost three-quarters of the population now owns a mobile phone.'
>
word
> "population" is singular, but it's not the population that owns a
phone.
> It's a large number of people represented by "three-quarters of
the
> population" who each own a phone, and the subject is therefore
plural.
That three-quarters of the population is a large number of people is
irrelevant. The writer wrote in terms of 'the population', not of
'the zillions of people who make up the population'.
"Three-quarters of the population", phrased another way, but keeping
the intent of the writer (if not the numerical precision), would be:
"Less than the whole of the population".
"Less than the whole of it" is not, by any stretch of the
imagination, plural.
I don't care how many molecules make up a pencil; 'a pencil' is
singular, and 'half a pencil' is just as singular. The
sixty-kajillion molecules I'm holding in my hand can think of
themselves as being as individual as they like, but I am still
holding only one, single, half-pencil.
Robert Lieblich
> >Manchester, UK), Sophie Barber wrote in an article on One2One jobs:
> >'The UK mobile phone market is reaching saturation point because
> >almost three-quarters of the population now owns a mobile phone.'
>
> "population" is singular, but it's not the population that owns a phone.
> It's a large number of people represented by "three-quarters of the
> population" who each own a phone, and the subject is therefore plural.
This is an excellent succinct statement of one view of the matter.
There is, however, another view of the matter, already
well-represented by Mark Wallace. I feel very strongly both ways.
The AUE FAQ (to which I refer here on AEU 'cause we ain't got
nothing like it) cautions about making absolute statements, lest
contrary evidence surface and bite you.
It's hard in such a context as a newsgroup thread to figure out what
I myself would say, unselfconsciously, if I were to utter the
sentence in question and to have to choose between singular or
plural for the verb. I think I'd go with singular -- "owns.".
Eric Walker
[...]
>We already did this at great length with respect to "One out of
>four Germans ... ," although I think a lot of that was on, or
>crossposted to, AUE. I am not trying to provoke a
>recrudescence.
For those who want to Google up that incredibly long thread, the
search terms involve, I'm pretty sure, "one in three Germans."
But the recrudescence is, I think, necessarily on us, in that it
is the crux of the original query.
The simple explanation is that the usage is what is commonly
called "distributive," which is a good name for it. It applies
when individual members of a group or class are the subject: the
predication of the sentence is considered to be _distributed_ to
the members of the subject class, one at a time, so that the
subject remains true in number to the "one" involved.
Distributive usages are very common in English, and ought, from
sheer native instinct--that "one" is the ultimate singular
pronoun--to be easy to deal with, and they usually are. Slips
tend to be more slips of the tongue or pen than true misreadings
of the sense, though nowadays the movement to embalm slips as
new patterns of correctness is wreaking its havoc here as in
other areas of English.
Let me illustrate the idea of distributive use with a simple
example. In "The women returned to the room, and each one
resumed her former seat," we are really saying, but in a shorter
form (through distribution):
"Jane and Mary and Alice and Sarah and . . . and Elaine returned
to the room, and Jane resumed her former seat, and Mary resumed
her former seat, and . . . Elaine resumed her former seat."
That is the operative principle even were we to be speaking of
millions of women doing something, so long as we cast our saying
in a form using "each," "every," or similar singular pronouns.
In "one in three Germans believes," or in "three-quarters of the
population now owns," we are doing the same sort of thing:
"Citizen #1 now owns . . . and Citizen #n now owns . . . "
where n is, in this example, the number equal to 3/4 of the
population.
Slips arise in haste, when the attraction of the nearby plural
becomes a fatal attraction, the careless writer or speaker
associating the verb form with the class noun "women" or
"Germans" instead of the true subject. (Compare the all-too-
common solecism of the form "He is one of those fishermen who
has good luck every time out.")
In the particular use that began this thread, confusion seems
even less likely, as "population" is itself naturally singular:
one does not say "The population of the United States are about
275 million." Why a fraction of a singular might be thought
plural is hard to say; who could write "This pie is pretty good,
but my slice are especially good"?
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
Mark Wallace
"Robert Lieblich" <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3BE89101...@Verizon.net...
> Rainy Mokle wrote:
> >
> > j.g...@scotland.com (John A. Green) wrote:
> >
> > >In yesterday's Daily Telegraph (5 Nov 2001, on p32, printed in
> > >Manchester, UK), Sophie Barber wrote in an article on One2One
jobs:
> > >'The UK mobile phone market is reaching saturation point
because
> > >almost three-quarters of the population now owns a mobile
phone.'
> >
> > The verb should be "own". The writer fell into a trap because
the word
> > "population" is singular, but it's not the population that owns
a phone.
> > It's a large number of people represented by "three-quarters of
the
> > population" who each own a phone, and the subject is therefore
plural.
>
> This is an excellent succinct statement of one view of the matter.
> There is, however, another view of the matter, already
> well-represented by Mark Wallace. I feel very strongly both ways.
>
> The AUE FAQ (to which I refer here on AEU 'cause we ain't got
> nothing like it) cautions about making absolute statements, lest
> contrary evidence surface and bite you.
Absolute statements? Me?
Well, if you class saying that collective nouns are singular, then I
guess I have made an absolute statement. It is also a stative
statement, and I defy anyone to find an opposing view in *any*
grammar book or style manual. We're talking basics, here. Grass
roots. Collective nouns are not plural, even if their constituent
parts are countable.
As always, it's down to the writer/speaker to decide what he means,
and write/say it.
-- A cake had been cut into quarters. Three of the quarters were
eaten.
-- A cake was on the table. Three quarters of it was eaten --
despite the fact that each quarter had it's own identity, right to
life, bills, job on the stock market, etc..
Or, more in keeping with the original example:
-- A conglomerate of flour, butter, eggs, water, salt, jam and cream
was on the table.
-- Flour, butter, eggs, water, salt, jam and cream were on the
table, but they din't 'arf look like a cake, Mate.
> It's hard in such a context as a newsgroup thread to figure out
what
> I myself would say, unselfconsciously, if I were to utter the
> sentence in question and to have to choose between singular or
> plural for the verb. I think I'd go with singular -- "owns.".
I should bloody well hope so, too.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
Teleportation is Sci-Fi's daftest concept
But what if it really worked?
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/mother.htm
____________________________
John A. Green
<mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote:
>"John A. Green" <j.g...@scotland.com> wrote in message
>news:3be7ffd...@209.133.64.75...
>
>> In yesterday's Daily Telegraph (5 Nov 2001, ...
>> 'The UK mobile phone market is reaching saturation point because
>> almost three-quarters of the population now owns a mobile phone.'
>>
>> So is "owns" correct? Is 'three-quarters' not the plural of
>> 'three-quarter' when it does not apply to footballers?
>
>Two points:
>1) How can less than one be plural?
>2) Look under 'numerical determiners' in a good grammar book.
>3) Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
>
>Three-quarters of *it* _is_ less than one.
>Three-quarters of *them* _are_, or can be, plural.
>'The population' is an 'it', not a 'them'.
I have now read a number of replies making similar points, though with
some surprise as 'owns' sounded unusual to me. I, of course, take the
point that 'three-quarters' is less than one - but so is '75%', do you
say: "75% are" or "75% is"? I should choose the former.
I still take the view that 'quarters' is the subject of the sentence
and thus plural; the introduction of the hyphen in 'three-quarters'
does not change this.
Nor is it a 'weights & measures' case, eg
"750 gram of cheese costs 3 Rand" or
"Three quarters of a kilo of cheese costs 3 Rand."
Although a red herring, there is a tendency to treat 'population', a
noun of multitude, (when referring distributively) as a plural - at
least outhwith the USA -
"The population disagree about ..."
similarly if one substitutes 'people'
"The people disagree about ...
rather than as in "Surely the people is grass."
Pehaps this is why I should say:
"Almost three-quarters of the population now own a mobile phone."
I can at least hope a number of people is in agreement with me. :-)
Mark Wallace
Same thing:
-- 75% of *them* _are_.
-- 75% of *it* _is_.
> I still take the view that 'quarters' is the subject of the
sentence
> and thus plural; the introduction of the hyphen in
'three-quarters'
> does not change this.
> Nor is it a 'weights & measures' case, eg
> "750 gram of cheese costs 3 Rand" or
> "Three quarters of a kilo of cheese costs 3 Rand."
Numbers, used in this way, are determiners. They cannot be the
subject of a sentence/clause.
If you look through the archive of AUE, you'll find a nice little
discussion about numerical determiners, during the course of which I
remember lambasting Robbie Lieblich about them (that was fun! I'll
have to do it again, some day).
The upshot of the discussion was, IIRC, that Mirriam Webster had
decided not to include determiners in its little, provincial
dictionary, so a lot of people didn't know what they were.
Basically, a numerical determiner is a modifier which (like any
determiner) has no attributes of its own, but which takes on the
attributes of the noun it modifies. The way in which it modifies
its non is also unusual, because it doesn't modify it at all -- that
is, a cube is still exactly the same cube, even if there are two of
them (?!). What numerical determiners do modify, as you would
expect, is the number of instances of the noun.
Now for the plural/singular bit: The plurality of a noun is defined
as being true if the numerical determiner which modifies the number
of instances of the noun is greater than one. The singularity of a
noun is not defined, except in that it is not plural. The only rule
is for plurals; so everything else is singular (except when talking
of money, which, for some obscure reason, is always either 'one' or
plural).
This includes negative numbers, by the way. If you can come up with
a clause that has a negative number of instances of its subject
noun, which are all performing the action of the main verb in a
plural sense, I shall be quite surprised -- if there are less than
none of them, they can't perform a great many actions.
> Although a red herring, there is a tendency to treat 'population',
a
> noun of multitude, (when referring distributively) as a plural -
at
> least outhwith the USA -
> "The population disagree about ..."
Disagree with whom? If there is only one of it (as indicated by the
determiner 'the'), then who is left for it/them to disagree with?
"Various sectors of the population disagree about..." -- thumbs up.
> similarly if one substitutes 'people'
> "The people disagree about ...
Remember that 'people' is also the plural of 'person'. Without
'the', it works fine:
-- People disagree about...
-- Many people disagree about...
Or even:
-- Two people disagree about...
'Population' doesn't have that facility -- "Two population disagree
about..."?
> rather than as in "Surely the people is grass."
> Pehaps this is why I should say:
> "Almost three-quarters of the population now own a mobile phone."
It still rings wrongly, in my ears.
Lawdy, Lawdy! I made a funny!
> I can at least hope a number of people is in agreement with me.
:-)
No dices. 'A number' is singular.
<note to self: Find an excuse to lambaste Robbie Lieblich!>
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
You want nanomachines?
I'll give you nanomachines!
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/nmaj.htm
____________________________
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> Numbers, used in this way, are determiners. They cannot be the
> subject of a sentence/clause.
> If you look through the archive of AUE, you'll find a nice little
> discussion about numerical determiners, during the course of which I
> remember lambasting Robbie Lieblich about them (that was fun! I'll
> have to do it again, some day).
Sorry, Mark, I'm still nursing my wounds from the last go-round. As
I recall, I declared victory unilaterally and left the scene, but
the victory turned out to be Pyrrhic.
No, no, wait a minute. I think I agreed with you.
Well, it was a long time ago by Usenet standards. Maybe someone
will look it up. I won't.
Eric Walker
[...]
>I have now read a number of replies making similar points,
>though with some surprise as 'owns' sounded unusual to me. I,
>of course, take the point that 'three-quarters' is less than
>one - but so is '75%', do you say: "75% are" or "75% is"? I
>should choose the former.
The usage, having a number as its subject, would seem clearly
singular: "Do you realize that 36% of the American public is
functionally illiterate?" The point is perhaps plainer if the
percentage is not a round number: would we say 36.31% are?
The number of complexities entailed here is great. Well, that's
a fake sentence, to make a point: we cannot rightly use a plural
verb with "number"--or _a_ number--as the subject. "What these
gentlemen need is some better morals." Plurality of notion all
around, but a singular verb because the true subject is "what,"
a singular thing. The size denominated by the number is
irrelevant: we do not say "37 are a big number." And we say "37
objections is too many to ignore."
>I still take the view that 'quarters' is the subject of the
>sentence and thus plural; the introduction of the hyphen in
>'three-quarters' does not change this.
Irrelevant. We are not speaking of four footballers who each
may or may not own a cell phone. The "quarters" are each large
numbers of persons who collectively amount to one-fourth of the
population. And the original statement considered them
distributively.