Jill is one of the girls who is/are missing.

[tzfujimino]

The last one would be more natural in the signular,
:shock:

 

[Phaedrus]

Jill is one of the girls who is/are missing. . . . Syntactically, the relative clause can only belong in the embedded noun phrase with "girls" as head. Thus the plural verb "are" is correct.

However, this is not always the case. Consider this example:

Ed is one of her colleagues who is always ready to criticise her.

Here the relative clause belongs in the topmost noun phrase with "one" as fused determiner-head. It is not a matter of there being a set of colleagues who are always ready to criticise her, but of there being just one colleague who is always ready to criticise her.

It's strange that you should say that, "yntactically, the relative clause can only belong in the embedded noun phrase with 'girls' as head" in the one example, and then that the relative clause "belongs in the topmost noun phrase with 'one'" in the other example, whose syntax is essentially parallel.

The example with Ed can go both ways, as well. Syntactically, there is nothing preventing a plural verb in the relative clause (Ed is one of her colleagues who are always ready to criticize her), unless, like many, you find restrictive relative clauses modifying possessive noun phrases questionable. But there is a fix:

Ed is one of the colleagues of hers who are always ready to criticize her.

In that sentence, there does exist a set of colleagues who are always ready to criticize her. Poor woman, she has a hostile work environment.

Returning to the example with Jill, if some members still doubt whether it is syntactically possible for the relative clause to modify "one" rather than "girls," consider that "one" may be preceded by "the only," and that, if it is, the relative clause not only can modify "one" instead of "girls," but must:

Jill is the only one of the girls who is missing.
*[strike]Jill is the only one of the girls who are missing.[/strike]

For the latter to be possible, an additional relative clause would be needed -- e.g.:

Jill is the only one of the girls who are missing who has phoned her parents.

Interestingly, there, the relative clauses modify different NPs. The antecedent of the first "who" is "girls." The antecedent of the second "who" is "one."

 

[Tarheel]

Piscean is one of the members who is online at the moment.
Piscean is one of the members who responds here regularly.
Piscean is one of the members who makes quite a few tysop.

All of my choices go with either Piscean or one. (Take your pick.)

 

[Phaedrus]

I have just come upon an in-depth, advanced, fine-tuned analysis which may be of interest to some members, titled "One of Those Constructions that Really Needs a Proper Analysis" (Arnold and Lucas, 2016). The authors are interested in cases of "mismatch," where the relative clause with a singular verb is intended to modify the plural NP that precedes the relative clause.

As far as I can tell, having only skimmed through the article (I plan to read the whole thing carefully later on), the authors do not look at examples where the relative clause with a singular verb really is intended to modify the larger NP headed by "one" (rather than the smaller NP headed by a plural noun contained within it) and is therefore not a case of mismatch.

Such an example is "Earth is one of the planets in our solar system that has liquid water." Were I to draw a tree for the NP headed by "one" in that sentence, it would resemble the tree that appears in Arnold and Lucas's example (22), on page 51, with the difference that I would use DPs in addition to NPs and have a TP in place of the S. But those are technicalities. The important difference is that, semantically, the example sentence would not involve mismatch.

 

[PaulMatthews]

I touched on the topic of mismatch in my post #10, example 3:


However, you may well come across singular override, as in

Jill is one of the girls who is missing.

which presumably can be attributed to the salience within the whole structure of singular "one". But it cannot be regarded as a semantically motivated override: semantically the relative clause modifies "girls".

 

[Rover_KE]

The OP having long since lost interest, I'm closing the thread.

 

[Phaedrus]

Continuation of Closed Thread "Jill is one of the girls who is/are . ."

Regarding the non-end of this unjustly terminated thread, which had already been unjustly terminated and reopened by somebody's special request:

Jill is one of the girls who is/are missing. - Page 3 (usingenglish.com)

the OP never having demonstrated interest in his replies in the first place, there were no grounds for the pretense that he lost interest precisely here.

Paul Matthews, post #27, page 3:

I touched on the topic of mismatch in my post #10, example 3:


However, you may well come across singular override, as in

Jill is one of the girls who is missing.

which presumably can be attributed to the salience within the whole structure of singular "one". But it cannot be regarded as a semantically motivated override: semantically the relative clause modifies "girls".

The sentence is syntactically ambiguous: the noun phrase "one of the girls who BE[present tense] missing" can have either of two different syntactic structures. In neither of them is there any point of speaking of an "override."

If the relative clause is an adjunct of the noun phrase headed by "girls," the verb should be plural. If the relative clause is an adjunct of the noun phrase headed by "one," the verb of the relative clause should be singular.

What decides between the two interpretations is semantic intention. Semantic intention will depend on the context. No context has been given. Therefore there is nothing that rules out either syntactically possible parsing.

For the topic of "override" to apply here, the verb would need to be singular, with the semantics indicating that it would be perverse to interpret the relative clause as modifying anything other than "girls." That is not the case here.

 

[emsr2d2]

Re: Continuation of Closed Thread "Jill is one of the girls who is/are .

I think 'outrageously closed' is a little OTT.

So did I. I have edited the title.

 

[TheParser]

Re: Continuation of Closed Thread "Jill is one of the girls who is/are .

NOT A TEACHER

Here is a trick that one source suggests: Turn the sentence around. Instead of "James is one of those people who is/are computer illiterate," mentally rearrange the sentence as: "Of those people who ____ computer illiterate, James is one." It seems pretty clear that "are" is required in order to match "people."


William Safire, No Uncertain Terms (2003), pages 336-339.


P.S. The example sentence is mine, not Mr. Safire's.

 

[Phaedrus]

Re: Continuation of Closed Thread "Jill is one of the girls who is/are .

I was surprised to see that thread closed when an interesting discussion was still going on, but I think 'outrageously closed' is a little OTT.

Sorry about that, and thank you for teaching me "OTT," which I assume means "over the top."

I should have said "prematurely," but I was frustrated at being prevented from replying to PaulMatthews, who had effectively been given the last word.

 

[Phaedrus]

Re: Continuation of Closed Thread "Jill is one of the girls who is/are .

Here is a trick that one source suggests: Turn the sentence around. Instead of "James is one of those people who is/are computer illiterate," mentally rearrange the sentence as: "Of those people who ____ computer illiterate, James is one." It seems pretty clear that "are" is required in order to match "people."


William Safire, No Uncertain Terms (2003), pages 336-339.

Thank you for that reference, TheParser. Bryan Garner uses the same trick in his usage guide. It is a very useful way of illustrating the need for the plural verb in cases where the plural verb is needed. Those are cases where the construction is used to identify someone or something as being one member of a set or people or things that all share a particular property, such as being missing, being computer illiterate, etc.

Those cases may very well account for the vast majority of uses of "one of the [plural noun] + [relative clause]." If so, it is only right that writers on usage should caution people about the construction. However, assuming those of us who believe that in some cases the other parsing is also possible -- with a different meaning, not merely as an "overridden" blunder -- are right, a footnote is needed in such usage guides. Consider this real-life example:

(1) I am one of the members at Using English who believes the parent thread should not have been closed.

At the time of this posting, I am not aware of there being any other member here besides me who believes the parent thread should not have been closed. (I know that Piscean was surprised, because he said he was, but I can't infer from Piscean's surprise that he possesses that belief.) Therefore it would not be correct for me to assert that I am one of a number of members who share the property of believing that the parent thread should not have been closed.

The "trick" applies to my example, too, but in a different way; the "of"-phrase does not include the relative clause, which modifies "one," not "members":

(1') Of the members at Using English, I am one who believes the parent thread should not have been closed.

The sentence is rather comparable to "I, for one, . . ." statements. I'd like to thank Rover for the happy coincidence of providing me with the perfect example.

 

[Tdol]

Re: Continuation of Closed Thread "Jill is one of the girls who is/are .

FYI - I think that thread should not have been closed.

Your wish is my command. I have merged them and re-opened.

 

[kohyoongliat]

I got it from one of my grammar books. I cannot remember which one.

The answer provided is "are".

 

[Tdol]

There are grammar books and grammar books. ;-)

 

[Phaedrus]

I got it from one of my grammar books. I cannot remember which one.

The answer provided is "are".

Welcome back, kohyoongliat. If you look through your thread here, you will find a variety of perspectives. Your thread was closed and reopened -- twice.

Because you hadn't replied to, "liked," or clicked "thank" on any of the postings, it was assumed that you had no interest in the thread you had started.

 

[TheParser]

Jill is one of the girls who is/are missing.

NOT A TEACHER

In your sentence, you may wish to use the plural verb. "Jill is one of what?" "The girls who are missing."

The singular verb, however, would be appropriate in this sentence: "Jill is the only one of the girls who is missing."


Source: House and Harman, Descriptive English Grammar (1931 and 1950), pages 352-353.

 

[Phaedrus]

In your sentence, you may wish to use the plural verb. "Jill is one of what?" "The girls who are missing."

The singular verb, however, would be appropriate in this sentence: "Jill is the only one of the girls who is missing."


Source: House and Harman, Descriptive English Grammar (1931 and 1950), pages 352-353.

Thank you for that wonderful reference. When checking my copy, I especially enjoyed seeing the Reed-Kellogg diagrams on those pages for "Smith is one of those men who like to see their names in the papers" and "I am the only one of the men who enjoys baseball."

There is a grammatical term that has been lurking in the background of this discussion: "partitive construction." The partitive construction here is "one of [a set of things/people]." Whether the verb of the relative clause should be singular or plural depends, as I see it, on whether the relative clause is part of the partitive construction.

If the relative clause is part of the partitive construction in this case, it will be definitive of the set of girls of which Jill is one. Because it is perfectly natural to interpret the sentence that way, and surely any grammar book including it as an exercise would intend the relative clause to be interpreted thus, the plural verb is a great choice.

That said, let's suppose the singular is used in the relative clause. Further, let's suppose that the singular is not being used blunderingly by a native speaker who intends the relative clause to define the plurality of people of which Jill is one. It is possible for the relative clause not to be part of the partitive construction. To illustrate:

A: Thank goodness none of the girls is missing!
B: Unfortunately, Jill is. Jill is one of the girls who is missing. There may be others of them who are missing, too.

As is clear in that context, Speaker B's second sentence is not equivalent in meaning to "Jill is one of the missing girls," for which meaning "are" would be required: "Jill is one of the girls who are missing." The partitive construction in B's second sentence is simply "one of the girls"; it is understood which girls "the girls" refers to.

The relative clause in B's second sentence modifies "one," not "girls." Interestingly, we can imagine examples containing relative clauses in both functions. In the example below, the first relative clause modifies "girls" and is part of the partitive construction; the second relative clause modifies "one" and is not part of the partitive.

Jill is one of the girls who are missing who is really beautiful.
One of the girls who are missing who is really beautiful is Jill.