>>7782672
"One" is singular; "one in twelve workers" is not.

Q: How many WERE unemployed?
A: One in twelve.

Q: How many WAS unemployed?
A: Don't speak to me, you filthy unlettered degenerate. Go back to your dirty European country, and speak the language of that country, not this one, you immigrant.

one worker in twelve was unemployed

>>7782672

First, you should say 'one' instead of '1' since you want to spell out such a small number (less than 10). This goes double if it's at the beginning of a sentence. (You can go with '1' if it's a headline.)

With that, the subject is 'one' (with 'in 12 workers' serving to modify it), so verb agreement requires 'was'.

>The first one seems grammatically correct, but the second one sounds nicer
I suppose one could make a case for this, but some would definitely disagree.

one [in twelve] was unemployed

It's was. In twelve is a totally independent phrase.

>>7782672

The indicative verb (was) is modified by the noun "one," not the plural noun "workers." So it's "1 in 12 workers was..." (one was)

The only way it would be different is if you were referring to the workers specifically. e.g. "1 in 12 belongs to a group of workers who were recently fired." So we see in this case that "were" is the verb modified by the noun "workers."

>>7782672
If you didn't stink at math you would know which verb to use.

>1 ... workers was

??

these people are dumb. it's "were"

"1 in 12" is a way of sounding out a ratio. it's not that there was one worker unemployed, otherwise you would say "was" ("one out of the twelve was unemployed" c.f. "one out of twelve were unemployed")

>>7782807
>"1 in 12" is a way of sounding out a ratio
So this ratio is as opposed to these ratios were?
blowing yourself out muh lad.

>>7782816
did you have a stroke? i have no idea what you're trying to say

>>7782807
i guess if we know from context that there's one unemployed person then it could be said one in twelve was unemployed. if we don't know that from context then maybe the statement is supposed to make us think that (instead of saying it is a ratio). however if the statement means a ratio then it's obviously wrong.

>>7782807

'12' is not the subject; it's modifying '1', which is the subject.

>>7782807
>"1 in 12" is a way of sounding out a ratio

Right, but grammar doesn't recognize things like that. Verbs are modified based on whether the noun is singular or plural. There's nothing more to it.

Although this certainly seems to be debated in U.K. English where they might treat singular nouns as plural when they represent collectives. e.g. "The group were" instead of "The group was." I personally hate this usage.

>>7782672
The latter. Prescriptivism is fucking retarded

>>7782844
the subject is the workers, the ratio modifies it. otherwise it is strange to say one, followed by a plural, then saying 'was' i.e. one workers was. "one in twelve" applies to any total other than just one worker, which would be the "was" if it is specified. otherwise it is "were" because the number of unemployed workers exceeds one.

>>7782861
>the subject is the workers

The subject is not the workers. "One" is the subject. One is the noun that modifies the verb.

It may not seem logical on a more abstract level, but again, that's not how grammar works. Grammar illustrates simple, direct relationships between nouns and verbs regardless of your ratios or any other factors.

>>7782861
I actually agree with this

>>7782874
one workers?

Were if it is a ratio
was if there are only 12 worker and 1 is unemployed (in that case it would be 1 of the 12 workers was umemployed)
Yw

Things after prepositional phrases are not included in the subject. A gang of thieves was after me. One in twelve was .... one is the subject, in twelve is a prepositional modifier to that subject.

>>7782861
I agree with this guy, "1 in 12" is an adjective modifying "workers".

Because nouns after prepositions are objects, not subjects.

Neither, they're not workers if they're unemployed.

1 in 12 was
2 in 12 were

1 is singular and the subject of the sentence.