Pedants' Paradise

[Pulcinella]

No, it's a 'cumulative' - one in every ten. It's singular if you think there are only ten users of smartphones, in which case 'their' is being used as an alternative to his/her.

But the fact that it 'sounds fine' to an unquantified number of people means it will be used.

I like the 'one in every ten' construction, which then (for me at least) could quite happily have (singular) reaches, but I'm not quite sure that that was your point, was it?
(Is there a 'Now I'm confused' emoticon?)

[jean]

No, it's a 'cumulative' - one in every ten.

I don't agree - like a collective noun, it can be thought of as a 'cumulative' or as a number of discrete individuals, each considered separately

Like a collective noun, it may take a singular or a plural verb as required.

[french frank]

I like the 'one in every ten' construction, which then (for me at least) could quite happily have (singular) reaches, but I'm not quite sure that that was your point, was it?
(Is there a 'Now I'm confused' emoticon?)

Well, the point was where there are two neighbouring 'grey' areas (is 'one in ten singular or plural?' and 'can you use plural 'their' to mean his/her?') it would be logical to have some consistency: either singulars or plurals.

: confused : should give

[kernelbogey]

I don't agree - like a collective noun, it [?] can be thought of as a 'cumulative' or as a number of discrete individuals, each considered separately

Like a collective noun, it[?] may take a singular or a plural verb as required.

I don't see how 'one' - of all nouns! - can possibly be legitimately considered a plural - in grammar. The fact that usage is tending to treat 'one in ten [etc]' as a plural is, I suppose, something 'careful users of English' (as the Collins Dictionary describes us pedants) will just have to bear, gritting our teeth.

I would always write 'one in ten... has...'.

[Pulcinella]

Well, the point was where there are two neighbouring 'grey' areas (is 'one in ten singular or plural?' and 'can you use plural 'their' to mean his/her?') it would be logical to have some consistency: either singulars or plurals.

Indeed.

: confused : should give

Yes, of course (but my confusion was not limited to one side of my brain!).

[french frank]

(but my confusion was not limited to one side of my brain!).

I managed to turn into but not sure if I can do the same with . Anyway, you'll be wanting to wink with your right eye next

[vinteuil]

I don't see how 'one' - of all nouns! - can possibly be legitimately considered a plural - in grammar. / ... /

I would always write 'one in ten... has...'.

... but it's not "one" that is being considered as a possible plural - it's "one-in-ten".

If 'one in ten' Australians have skin cancer we are talking about two and a half million people, not one person.

[jean]

I don't see how 'one' - of all nouns! - can possibly be legitimately considered a plural - in grammar.

My 'it' referred to the construction as a whole.

I'm very surprised that ff thinks that it's the singular verb that's new, when I think the reverse is the case:

But the fact that it 'sounds fine' to an unquantified number of people means it will be used.

[jean]

If 'one in ten' Australians have skin cancer we are talking about two and a half million people, not one person.

But we may consider each of those two and a half million people as an individual, and dignify each of them with their own singular verb.

In fact, the very existence of the word each acknowledges the existence of the greater number from which we have extracted that individual.

[vinteuil]

.

... we may so consider them, of course.

I'm not insisting on a plural here, merely indicating that I don't object to one. Nor wd I object to a singular. I'm easy, me

[vinteuil]

... you'll be wanting to wink with your right eye next

... like this :

[french frank]

... like this :

That's your left eye.

[vinteuil]

That's your left eye.

... here's looking at you.

I spose it depends whether you think the wink involves the open or the closed eye...

[gurnemanz]

No, it's a 'cumulative' - one in every ten. It's singular if you think there are only ten users of smartphones, in which case 'their' is being used as an alternative to his/her.

But the fact that it 'sounds fine' to an unquantified number of people means it will be used.

Of course, as soon as one of our last surviving verb inflections, the 3rd person singular present tense "s" is finally eroded - maybe not in our lifetime - there will no longer be an issue for pedants to discuss, as there is not in the simple past, where there is no difference in form between sing and pl: One in ten smartphone users reached for their phone.

[vinteuil]

Of course, as soon as one of our last surviving verb inflections, the 3rd person singular present tense "s" is finally eroded - maybe not in our lifetime - there will no longer be an issue for pedants to discuss, as there is not in the simple past, where there is no difference in form between sing and pl: One in ten smartphone users reached for their phone.

... I'm sure there are some antic pedants who think that that shd be "raught for their 'phone"