Google Australia advanced search looking for the exact phrase "one of them were" but without the context of the words "if" "not" all but" "twenty" and "thirty" (they only allow six exclusions))
gives 85 hits from the whole world of which many if not most can be excluded for good reasons. The only one from Australia was this:
"Yesterday, 19 men, myself one of them, were ordained" . Make of it what you will.
By the way "intend to go" 68,100 hits, "intend going" 3,830.
one of ...
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
JuanTwoThree
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
Last edited by JuanTwoThree on Fri Sep 17, 2004 7:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
a stab at some detail
I'm no expert on regional British accents, but the phrase sounds natural enough to me in a West Country, Derbyshire, Yorkshire and Lancashire accent. Am I wrong?
Of course, that doesn't mean that people from those regions would type that while using a computer, so Juan 2-3 wouldn't be able to sniff them out.
Of course, that doesn't mean that people from those regions would type that while using a computer, so Juan 2-3 wouldn't be able to sniff them out.
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
Perhaps Harzer's hearing is affected by the same kind of dysepsia that affects his posting to these forums 
"He wur sent off" would be OK in "Hobson's Choice" type Lancashire. However that is because "wur" is used with a singular third person subject. The particular phrase "one of them" is irrelevant.
"He wur sent off" would be OK in "Hobson's Choice" type Lancashire. However that is because "wur" is used with a singular third person subject. The particular phrase "one of them" is irrelevant.
-
JuanTwoThree
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
A sniffy reply
But Woodcutter, someone transcribes such uses or comments on them, or complains about them.
"he were" -if - unless -lest gives 20,000 examples of folk-songs and dialects plus the odd subjunctive.
"we be" - shall -should -can -could -may - must gives 50,000 examples of rap lyrics, folk songs, dialects and the occasional legit. use.
Harzer's claim of a virtually standard usage with a high incidence of "one of +plural +were" is not documented to the same extent. Nobody in Australia has ever used the web to mention this form using "them", as far as I can see. Not once. "one of the players were" gets one Australian hit.
Harzer, I'm sure you hear it a lot. But I think most people would agree with previous posters that one possibility is that these may be people who always use "were" for "was" which has nothing to do with the influence of the plural. After all, there are 150,000 examples of the opposite in the shape of "we was", for which there is no excuse in standard English. But 85 is a surprisingly low number for "one of them were" which suggests to me that there is a considerable reluctance to combine "one" with "were". I mean, how much more singular can you get than one ?
The other possibility is that you may think that they are saying "were" but they think they are saying "was". Australian English is notoriously truncated. Patterson has already suggested this and it would be my solution too. I say "hambag" and "wendsday" but I don't think that's what the words are.
I just can't believe that you've got a virtually standard usage that's not found its way onto the web. There has to be another explanation.
"he were" -if - unless -lest gives 20,000 examples of folk-songs and dialects plus the odd subjunctive.
"we be" - shall -should -can -could -may - must gives 50,000 examples of rap lyrics, folk songs, dialects and the occasional legit. use.
Harzer's claim of a virtually standard usage with a high incidence of "one of +plural +were" is not documented to the same extent. Nobody in Australia has ever used the web to mention this form using "them", as far as I can see. Not once. "one of the players were" gets one Australian hit.
Harzer, I'm sure you hear it a lot. But I think most people would agree with previous posters that one possibility is that these may be people who always use "were" for "was" which has nothing to do with the influence of the plural. After all, there are 150,000 examples of the opposite in the shape of "we was", for which there is no excuse in standard English. But 85 is a surprisingly low number for "one of them were" which suggests to me that there is a considerable reluctance to combine "one" with "were". I mean, how much more singular can you get than one ?
The other possibility is that you may think that they are saying "were" but they think they are saying "was". Australian English is notoriously truncated. Patterson has already suggested this and it would be my solution too. I say "hambag" and "wendsday" but I don't think that's what the words are.
I just can't believe that you've got a virtually standard usage that's not found its way onto the web. There has to be another explanation.
Well, it's nice of someone to take me a bit seriously, so thx for your post, Juan Two Three.
When I say that I have been hearing this for something like the last 12 years I mean of course not just that one phrase that I gave as an example but the general form [Noun/Pronoun-Sing + of + Noun/Pronoun-Plural + Verb-Plural].
Another more extreme example:
"the cost of houses are rising exponentially"
I can assure you I am not dreaming this up nor generalizing on very few instances from very few speakers - I have after all waited all this time to begin some research on it be sure I am not mistaken - a bit like Darwin with his theory of evolution LOL
Harzer
When I say that I have been hearing this for something like the last 12 years I mean of course not just that one phrase that I gave as an example but the general form [Noun/Pronoun-Sing + of + Noun/Pronoun-Plural + Verb-Plural].
Another more extreme example:
"the cost of houses are rising exponentially"
I can assure you I am not dreaming this up nor generalizing on very few instances from very few speakers - I have after all waited all this time to begin some research on it be sure I am not mistaken - a bit like Darwin with his theory of evolution LOL
Harzer
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
Why has the right margin of this thread gone so far over? The huge URL that was posted by JuanTwoThree? Whatever the reason, it is a pain in the you-know-what to scroll back and forth to read what's been said. Maybe it will get back to normal on the third page - presuming this thread makes it that far. Still, it might, if people don't mind continuing being somewhat rude to each other! 
-
JuanTwoThree
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
My huge URL
I made it go away, and things look better again.
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
the example you gave appears to be one where nobody but yourself has come across the example.[Noun/Pronoun-Sing + of + Noun/Pronoun-Plural + Verb-Plural]
I am still puzzled by your general form. What pronoun are we going to find apart from 'one'? If you consider 'none' a singular pronoun then you will get plenty of examples of the plural verb but that is a different matter.
Perhaps you could give us some more specific examples - I'm finding it very hard to think of any offhand.
Yes you're right, the generalized form has to show 'one' as the only possible pronoun in Subject position - but in the pre-verbal position you can have any plural pronoun: one of them were ...
Other examples are:
<The incidence of road accidents involving unlicensed drivers are on the rise.>
<Every case of disobedience such as these have to be punished.>
And the inverse of this, which was in the bridge column in my morning paper, is:
<Today's hand is from our game last Friday, where all declarers but one was successful in making 3NT.>
i.e. the singular pre-verbal "one" demands a singular verb.
The more I think about it the more I think that this form derives from the indisputably correct
<a large number of cars are shipped to Malaysia each month>
where the plural verb after the singular word 'number' can not be grammatically justified.
I'm having trouble coming across examples in print which I can direct you to - you are hardly likely to bring up my paper's bridge column on your screen because it is in the weekend supplement. Still, maybe one day...
Harzer (and I'm sorry for my display of dyspepsia but I do not relish being called 'unintelegint' or whatever spelling was used, being accused of holding points of view that I have categorically denied holding, and being instructed on the erroneousness of the grammar in my sentence example when I have asked people not to waste their time with that but to answer the question I posed.)
Other examples are:
<The incidence of road accidents involving unlicensed drivers are on the rise.>
<Every case of disobedience such as these have to be punished.>
And the inverse of this, which was in the bridge column in my morning paper, is:
<Today's hand is from our game last Friday, where all declarers but one was successful in making 3NT.>
i.e. the singular pre-verbal "one" demands a singular verb.
The more I think about it the more I think that this form derives from the indisputably correct
<a large number of cars are shipped to Malaysia each month>
where the plural verb after the singular word 'number' can not be grammatically justified.
I'm having trouble coming across examples in print which I can direct you to - you are hardly likely to bring up my paper's bridge column on your screen because it is in the weekend supplement. Still, maybe one day...
Harzer (and I'm sorry for my display of dyspepsia but I do not relish being called 'unintelegint' or whatever spelling was used, being accused of holding points of view that I have categorically denied holding, and being instructed on the erroneousness of the grammar in my sentence example when I have asked people not to waste their time with that but to answer the question I posed.)
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
I'm afraid that if it is "indisputably correct" any failure to justify it grammatically lies with the grammarian and not the construction.The more I think about it the more I think that this form derives from the indisputably correct
<a large number of cars are shipped to Malaysia each month>
where the plural verb after the singular word 'number' can not be grammatically justified.
Tne concept of "notional agreement" deals with this and many other examples perfectly adequately.
The example from your Bridge Column is clearly incorrect. It could be the result of idiot editing, badly programmed grammar checkers, the writer having written (or thought he'd written) "every declarer but one" and then changing his mind.
The reason for this is obvious. The plural nouns drivers and accidents are so much closer to the verb that some kind of reflex action kicks in and it becomes plural. You can find examples of this kind of mistake going back up to a hundred years. A probably explanation is that the phrase is so long that the writer lets his eye off the ball too soon.the incidence of road accidents involving unlicensed drivers are on the rise.
An awful phrase. Isn't there some kind of long-drawn out aboriginal death by torture that can be applied to the perpetrators of abominations such as this. F***ing around with one's mother tongue should definitely have the same penalties as F***ing one's mother. All I can say in its defense is that the writer must have been so apoplectic at the rank disobedience that he got both hsi knickers and his numbers in a right twist.Every case of disobedience such as these have to be punished
Ire....
Good morning all.
I should wait until tomorrow, then I wouldn't post this, but now it's too late!
"I asked a simple enough question and expected a "no" or " sometimes" or " fairly often" or whatever, together with some indication of time and place and so on...."
Sometimes:
School drop-outs, factory workers, dirt farmers, people trapped in ghettoes and slums.
No:
University students and their teachers, civil servants, people who like to read, English teachers of all disciplines.
Sounds hard, cold, irritated even, my answer, but my supporting thoughts are clearly not wanted. Should have posted a "yes/no" pole instead of asking this debating group to comment.
peace,
revel.
I should wait until tomorrow, then I wouldn't post this, but now it's too late!
"I asked a simple enough question and expected a "no" or " sometimes" or " fairly often" or whatever, together with some indication of time and place and so on...."
Sometimes:
School drop-outs, factory workers, dirt farmers, people trapped in ghettoes and slums.
No:
University students and their teachers, civil servants, people who like to read, English teachers of all disciplines.
Sounds hard, cold, irritated even, my answer, but my supporting thoughts are clearly not wanted. Should have posted a "yes/no" pole instead of asking this debating group to comment.
peace,
revel.
Revel: you are probably correct in your assumption that the less- educated classes are the ones who more readily coin and adopt groundbreaking (or earth-shattering) neologisms (neogrammarisms??).
But their weight in numbers may one day allow their creations to prevail.
The English of today is far from being identical with the English of 1000 years ago - ergo there is some mechanism for linguistic change alive and well out there; my guess is that it is something akin to the biological mechanism for change known as a mutation. But I would be happy to hear your idea of what this mechanism might be.
Harzer
But their weight in numbers may one day allow their creations to prevail.
The English of today is far from being identical with the English of 1000 years ago - ergo there is some mechanism for linguistic change alive and well out there; my guess is that it is something akin to the biological mechanism for change known as a mutation. But I would be happy to hear your idea of what this mechanism might be.
Harzer
Stephen:
(1) I can not understand how any grammatical analysis is going to be able treat these sentences as structurally different:
A large number of cars are shipped to Malaysia each year.
A group of students were sent home with chickenpox.
The cost of apples were blamed for a drop in their consumption.
If they are not structurally different then they are all grammatically wrong or all grammatically correct.
(2) I had to make up the elucidatory examples I gave you, since I am short of written examples. I think your reaction to the second one is a bit over the top. I was trying to show how far-reaching this preverbal noun - verb number concordance can be.
I fail to see how you can suddenly justify the first example on psycholinguistic grounds. Grammarians don't take psycholinguistics into account. They are all about structure and form, full stop.
Don't you see that my bridge example illustrates from a different perspective the very same phenomenon I originally brought to your attention? It is certainly the work of the author of the bridge column and does not need any apologetics to try to excuse it.
Harzer
(1) I can not understand how any grammatical analysis is going to be able treat these sentences as structurally different:
A large number of cars are shipped to Malaysia each year.
A group of students were sent home with chickenpox.
The cost of apples were blamed for a drop in their consumption.
If they are not structurally different then they are all grammatically wrong or all grammatically correct.
(2) I had to make up the elucidatory examples I gave you, since I am short of written examples. I think your reaction to the second one is a bit over the top. I was trying to show how far-reaching this preverbal noun - verb number concordance can be.
I fail to see how you can suddenly justify the first example on psycholinguistic grounds. Grammarians don't take psycholinguistics into account. They are all about structure and form, full stop.
Don't you see that my bridge example illustrates from a different perspective the very same phenomenon I originally brought to your attention? It is certainly the work of the author of the bridge column and does not need any apologetics to try to excuse it.
Harzer
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
Dear harzer
Do a Google search for "Notional Agreement" and then post back.
Once you have read a little about it you will find out why the third of these examples is incorrect and the other two are right.
Do a Google search for "Notional Agreement" and then post back.
Once you have read a little about it you will find out why the third of these examples is incorrect and the other two are right.
With regard to your commentA large number of cars are shipped to Malaysia each year.
A group of students were sent home with chickenpox.
The cost of apples were blamed for a drop in their consumption.
I suggest you widen your circle of grammarians.Grammarians don't take psycholinguistics into account. They are all about structure and form, full stop.
I sometimes take the time to view subject-verb concordance in English through the eyes of a speaker of another language (German) and what I see then is hairraising lunacy.
In German it takes just eight words to give the rule for subject-verb concordance:
The verb agrees with its subject in number
This rule has been set in concrete for 300 hundred years and will be on present indications for the next 300.
The corresponding rule in English on the other hand is so set about with riders that it amounts to a cavalry attack. 'Fluid' is the nicest thing you can say about concordance in English - you have nouns that can be singular or plural depending on the whim of the speaker; you have singular subjects that can take a singular or plural verb depending on whether the speaker could or could not not see the tree (the singular subject) for the woods (the complex subject-extension involving a number of plural nouns); you have nouns that with one attendant article require a plural verb (a number of X are Y) and with another require the singular (the number of X is Y) etc etc.
Whether you care to admit it or not, one area of English grammar at least is currently in a state of flux that no amount of contortion and hairsplitting a la "notional agreement' can disguise.
Harzer
In German it takes just eight words to give the rule for subject-verb concordance:
The verb agrees with its subject in number
This rule has been set in concrete for 300 hundred years and will be on present indications for the next 300.
The corresponding rule in English on the other hand is so set about with riders that it amounts to a cavalry attack. 'Fluid' is the nicest thing you can say about concordance in English - you have nouns that can be singular or plural depending on the whim of the speaker; you have singular subjects that can take a singular or plural verb depending on whether the speaker could or could not not see the tree (the singular subject) for the woods (the complex subject-extension involving a number of plural nouns); you have nouns that with one attendant article require a plural verb (a number of X are Y) and with another require the singular (the number of X is Y) etc etc.
Whether you care to admit it or not, one area of English grammar at least is currently in a state of flux that no amount of contortion and hairsplitting a la "notional agreement' can disguise.
Harzer