# Collective nouns - 99% of, the majority of the congregation - singular or plural? percent per cent



## cecil

All,

Here's a sentence: "I heard a minister say that 99% of his congregation were earning their salvation."  Strictly speaking "were" sounds right even though logic dictates "is."  What say the authorities?

cecil


----------



## Outsider

1. Actually, logic dictates "were". The number 99 is plural, and the noun "congregation" is collective.

2. Even if the subject were singular, you should not say "is", but "was", since the statement is in reported speech, with the verb "to hear" in the past tense.


----------



## Kelly B

See: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=31819&highlight=collective+noun
for a similar discussion.


----------



## cecil

Outsider said:
			
		

> 1. Actually, logic dictates "were". The number 99 is plural, and the noun "congregation" is collective.
> 
> 2. Even if the subject were singular, you should not say "is", but "was", since the statement is in reported speech, with the verb "to hear" in the past tense.


 
Outsider,

1. No, logic dictates singular because the subject is percent; 99 = .99.

2. I think the minister was referring to a continuing reality. If you like: I heard a minister say, "99% of my congretation are earning their salvation." In that case, logically "is" would be the verb choice. You are quite right, though, about the the sentence as originally written.

Thanks,

cecil


----------



## panjandrum

30% of the liquid in the bottle is alcohol.
30% of the guests are intoxicated.


----------



## Outsider

In addition to panjandrum's note:



			
				cecil said:
			
		

> 1. No, logic dictates singular because the subject is percent; 99 = .99.


I know that there is some rule that says that only numbers greater than 1 in absolute value should be plural. However, in practice, neither mathematicians nor engineers, nor anyone I can think of, follow that rule. It's always singular when 1, plural otherwise. Unless it's a percentage--percentages are more complicated.



			
				cecil said:
			
		

> 2. I think the minister was referring to a continuing reality. If you like: I heard a minister say, "99% of my congretation are earning their salvation." In that case, logically "is" would be the verb choice. You are quite right, though, about the the sentence as originally written.


On second thoughts, I take back what I had said about this. "I heard a minister say that 99% of his congregation *are* earning their salvation" would be acceptable, because their salvation is something that will happen in the speaker's future.


----------



## Rob625

More than one person has noticed something odd. Fewer than two people understand what I say.


----------



## panjandrum

The geese fly high tonight over the fog-shrouded marshes.
(Sorry, sense of humour overload - please ignore)
I seem to recall rationalisation of Rob625's eccentric statements - on the basis that to force a pedantically-correct plural (in the first) or singular (in the second) would produce catastrophic mental distress.
In other words, to follow *one* and *person* with *have* causes the reader to pause and wonder: saying more than one person has.... , the reader reads on and concentrates on the meaning, not the words used.


----------



## Outsider

Percentages are a special case. I often hesitate when talking about them, too. Should "56% of the electorate" be a plural, because "56" is plural, or a singular, because "electorate" is singular?
Since "congregation" is a collective noun, I suppose that "99% of the congregation is" can be defensible...


----------



## jacinta

Yes, you are correct.  It is defensible.  Notwithstanding, (I never use that word!  ), I believe that some will use the plural when talking about a congregation only because logically, 99% of the congregation is a lot of people!  "They are" makes sense and seems acceptable in most people's minds but the "correct" grammar would be to use the singular form.  99% of speakers don't bother with correct grammar   most of the time.


----------



## elroy

Outsider said:
			
		

> In addition to panjandrum's note:
> 
> I know that there is some rule that says that only numbers greater than 1 in absolute value should be plural. However, in practice, neither mathematicians nor engineers, nor anyone I can think of, follow that rule. It's always singular when 1, plural otherwise. Unless it's a percentage--percentages are more complicated.
> 
> On second thoughts, I take back what I had said about this. "I heard a minister say that 99% of his congregation *are* earning their salvation" would be acceptable, because their salvation is something that will happen in the speaker's future.



Well, not necessarily.  I think you were right the first time.  Also, even if it were in the future, it would be "would earn" or "were going to earn."


----------



## elroy

jacinta said:
			
		

> Yes, you are correct.  It is defensible.  Notwithstanding, (I never use that word!  ), I believe that some will use the plural when talking about a congregation only because logically, 99% of the congregation is a lot of people!  "They are" makes sense and seems acceptable in most people's minds but the "correct" grammar would be to use the singular form.  99% of speakers don't bother with correct grammar   most of the time.



I use "are" when referring to the members of the group individually; "is" when referring to them as a whole.

...regardless of how many there are/is.


----------



## Outsider

jacinta said:
			
		

> "They are" makes sense and seems acceptable in most people's minds but the "correct" grammar would be to use the singular form.


I think I've made a bit of a mess, here: although "congregation" is a collective noun, morphologically it's a singular (we can say "the congregation*s*"). So we have:

"99% of the congregation are" -> because 99 is plural, or because "congregation" is collective;

or

"99% of the congregation is" -> because "congregation" is singular.

My logic would dictate that the quantity 99% should be the subject, but I admit that sometimes it doesn't sound good.



			
				elroy said:
			
		

> Well, not necessarily.  I think you were right the first time.  Also, even if it were in the future, it would be "would earn" or "were going to earn."


Well, I meant that they "are earning" their salvation _now_, and they will get it in the future.


----------



## timpeac

I don't think logic dictates anything here, usage does. The usage where I come from would be "were".


----------



## Cath.S.

cecil said:
			
		

> Outsider,
> 
> 1. No, logic dictates singular because the subject is percent; 99 = .99.
> 
> 2. I think the minister was referring to a continuing reality. If you like: I heard a minister say, "99% of my congretation are earning their salvation." In that case, logically "is" would be the verb choice. You are quite right, though, about the the sentence as originally written.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> cecil


My two cents:
percent cannot be the subject as it is an adverb.


----------



## Outsider

The full expression is "ninety nine percent". "Ninety nine" is a numeral, and numerals can be subjects, sometimes.
But I suppose in the case of percentages "x percent of" is seen as a partitive expression, and that's why people regard the noun "the congregation" as the subject of the sentence.


----------



## cecil

Outsider said:
			
		

> The full expression is "ninety nine percent". "Ninety nine" is a numeral, and numerals can be subjects, sometimes.
> But I suppose in the case of percentages "x percent of" is seen as a partitive expression, and that's why people regard the noun "the congregation" as the subject of the sentence.


 
 The object of the prepositon is the subject?!?

cecil


----------



## gotitadeleche

Outsider said:
			
		

> "99% of the congregation are" -> because 99 is plural, or because "congregation" is collective;



Collective nouns take singular verbs in US English, unless you are trying to stress the individual members of the group. So:
The crew is...
The team plays...
The band performs...
The congregation earns...

If there is more than one group, if we are speaking of more than one congregation, then the plural is used. 
The congregations pray...

I believe the rules are different in British English.


----------



## cecil

>>percent cannot be the subject as it is an adverb.

equeule,

Not always. Percent can be a noun in English meaning a hundredth part. "99 percent" would then be plural. But, on the other hand, we say "20 percent of the bottle is empty." I think we have to go with timpeac: usage. 

cecil


----------



## Outsider

cecil said:
			
		

> The object of the prepositon is the subject?!?


Good question.

Actually...

The verb in question is "to earn" (in the form "are/is earning").

The subject of this verb is "ninety nine percent of the congregation".

Now, the problem is that this expression contains a singular noun, "congregation", and a plural numeral, "ninety nine". So, should the verb be in the singular or in the plural? 

_A priori_, the verb could agree with either of them. However, native speakers have told us that they would have the verb agree with the noun "congregation".

Then again, "congregation" is a collective noun, and for some English speakers collective nouns can take plural nouns...


----------



## cecil

>>The subject of this verb is "ninety nine percent of the congregation".

Outsider,

I have real difficulty with this statement. Suppose we say "99 parts out of 100 parts of the congregation," then "were earning" seems the logical choice. The trouble is, we Americans also say, "Twenty percent of the bottle is empty."  "Are" is unthinkable. Timpeac is right; logic will not solve this question. 

cecil


----------



## Outsider

cecil said:
			
		

> I have real difficulty with this statement. Suppose we say "99 parts out of 100 parts of the congregation," then "were earning" seems the logical choice.


However, that sentence does not have the same structure as the one we were discussing. Notice that it has more nouns.


----------



## cecil

>>Notice that it has more nouns.

Outsider,

True, but I was just making the point that 99% means 99 parts out of 100 parts, so the two merit the same verb: 99% = 99 parts..." Plural. In Italian, there would be no trouble, right? X percento è, giusto? Non importa il numero di X? Lo stesso vale per il portoghese?

cecil


----------



## panjandrum

I fear that I may have been rather too cryptic last time.
This is a question of the nature of the thing that is being "percented".
If that is a continuous thing, like liquid in a bottle, then 30% of it IS...
If that is a discrete thing, like people at a party (or in a congregation), then 30% of it ARE...
It's that easy.


----------



## cecil

panjandrum said:
			
		

> I fear that I may have been rather too cryptic last time.
> This is a question of the nature of the thing that is being "percented".
> If that is a continuous thing, like liquid in a bottle, then 30% of it IS...
> If that is a discrete thing, like people at a party (or in a congregation), then 30% of it ARE...
> It's that easy.


 
Bravo!   Now let's see if anyone finds an exception--to prove the rule, of course.

cecil


----------



## panjandrum

I should add that this principle applies also to:
*Fractions:*
a third of the people at the party are drunk; 
a quarter of the cake was eaten; 
even, surprisingly, three-quarters of the cake is left.
*Most:*
most of the people are still sober; 
most of the cake is still on the plate.

Awaiting hordes of contrary evidence.........


----------



## Outsider

cecil said:
			
		

> [...] I was just making the point that 99% means 99 parts out of 100 parts, so the two merit the same verb: 99% = 99 parts..." Plural.


I agree that "99%" should take the same verb form as "99 out of 100", since the former is just a shorthand for the latter. 
But when you put that extra word, "parts", you change things. Now, there's a new noun for the verb to agree with, instead of "congregation".



			
				cecil said:
			
		

> In Italian, there would be no trouble, right? X percento è, giusto? Non importa il numero di X? Lo stesso vale per il portoghese?


I don't know about Italian. As for Portuguese, we also scratch our heads over these kinds of expressions, sometimes.  
But Panjandrum's explanation seems clear enough, at least for English.

By the way, these expressions of the form "a portion of X" are called *partitive phrases*. They're a mess.


----------



## cecil

panjandrum said:
			
		

> I should add that this principle applies also to:
> *Fractions:*
> a third of the people at the party are drunk;
> a quarter of the cake was eaten;
> even, surprisingly, three-quarters of the cake is left.
> *Most:*
> most of the people are still sober;
> most of the cake is still on the plate.
> 
> Awaiting hordes of contrary evidence.........


 
panjandrum,

So clear. You haven't written a grammar text lately, have you? If not, you should as soon as possible.

cecil


----------



## cecil

>>But Panjandrum's explanation seems clear enough, at least for English.

Outsider,

Indeed. I think the issue is resolved.

By the way, these expressions of the form "a portion of X" are called partitive phrases. They're a mess.  

Sorry to hear Portuguese has similar problems. Every language is eccentric, to say the least.

cecil


----------



## JohninVirginia

panjandrum said:
			
		

> I should add that this principle applies also to:
> *Fractions:*
> a third of the people at the party are drunk;
> a quarter of the cake was eaten;
> even, surprisingly, three-quarters of the cake is left.
> *Most:*
> most of the people are still sober;
> most of the cake is still on the plate.
> 
> Awaiting hordes of contrary evidence.........



Nice examples.
For me, such examples work better than rules.

My guess is that *percents*, *fractions* and *most* are adjectives, qualifying the noun.  The verb matches the noun.
But I'll let a grammarian answer that.


----------



## panjandrum

I understand JohniV's yearning for a grammatical resolution.  
But "my" resolution, which please understand is not my own, does not need an understanding of grammar, only common sense - and this is the common sense "rule".
If the thing you are talking about is made up of lots of individual bits then a quarter of that thing will also be made up of lots of individual bits - and is plural.
If the thing you are talking about is a continuous blob, then a percent of it will still be a continuous blob - and it is singular.
I don't see any contraries yet


----------



## JohninVirginia

panjandrum said:
			
		

> I understand JohniV's yearning for a grammatical resolution.
> But "my" resolution, which please understand is not my own, does not need an understanding of grammar, only common sense - and this is the common sense "rule".
> If the thing you are talking about is made up of lots of individual bits then a quarter of that thing will also be made up of lots of individual bits - and is plural.
> If the thing you are talking about is a continuous blob, then a percent of it will still be a continuous blob - and it is singular.
> I don't see any contraries yet




I think that's pretty much same thing I said (a fraction modifies the noun, but the noun still is what it was)... and for the first time in my life, I said it in less words than someone else!!

GOD I LOVE THIS FORUM!!!

(And I'm not arguing with panjandrum, who solved this problem in elegant fashion.  I of course had nothing at all to do with the solution, but only commented about it.)


----------



## elroy

This wonderful rule is easily applicable when it is clear whether we are referring to a continuous blob or a number of items.  The challenge with the sample sentence and the word "congregration" is that you can refer to the congregration as a set of individual members or as a single, harmonious entity.  That's why it can be both.  With cake you can only say "is," with "people" you can only say "are," but with congregration you can say either, depending on your intent.

That's the rule as far as I've learned it.


----------



## Outsider

panjandrum said:
			
		

> But "my" resolution, which please understand is not my own, does not need an understanding of grammar, only common sense - and this is the common sense "rule".
> If the thing you are talking about is made up of lots of individual bits then a quarter of that thing will also be made up of lots of individual bits - and is plural.
> If the thing you are talking about is a continuous blob, then a percent of it will still be a continuous blob - and it is singular.
> I don't see any contraries yet


In other words, you think the opposition is between "noncollective" and "collective" nouns.


----------



## panjandrum

*Outsider:*  "...the opposition is between "noncollective" and "collective" nouns."?  That could well be what I mean - will take some thought to test it out.
*elroy:*  It may be intent, it may be the number of "individual bits" in the whole thing (bigger numbers are more like a continuous blob) - but I agree that congregation might be either singular or plural.  
Well, maybe not - maybe "the congregation", meaning all of them, is singular - as in "the congregation is split down the middle" (who ever heard of a harmonious congregation ).


----------



## virr2

Lucretia said:


> a) Holidays is what always brings us all together.
> b) Holidays are what always brings us all together.
> As I know, the verb must agree with the subject. Yet here a) sounds better to me. Which is correct?
> Thank you.


 
I would say that a) is correct. This sentence can be paraphrased as "Holidays is something that always brings us all together". To me, the use of plural is incorrect here because of the singular complement.

By the same token, the sentence "The majority are women" is correct and not "the majority is women". In the latter sentence the use of singular is incorrect because of the plural complement.

<<Moderator note:
This thread has been created to accommodate this conversation that was off-topic in the thread where it began.>>


----------



## ireney

Virr once again we disagree 

Holidays are the thing. Greeks are the nation. And so on and so forth.

As for the majority are _the_ women, I would argue that "women" is the subject whereas in "the majority is women" "majority" is the subject; however, since it may be my Greek-Latin syntax/grammar deeply ingrained sense of how to analyse a sentence I'll wait for a native.


----------



## virr2

ireney said:


> Virr once again we disagree
> 
> Holidays are the thing. Greeks are the nation. And so on and so forth.
> 
> As for the majority are _the_ women, I would argue that "women" is the subject whereas in "the majority is women" "majority" is the subject; however, since it may be my Greek-Latin syntax/grammar deeply ingrained sense of how to analyse a sentence I'll wait for a native.



Ireney, what did we disagree about? 
So, I am right in thinking that you claim that "the majority are women" is incorrect?


----------



## ireney

virr, we disagreed about whether "it" being a dummy subject in some cases "precludes" the existence of another, "normal" subject 

Bearing in mind what I said about my background in sentence analysis, what I did was disagreeing about majority/women.

I think that in the sentence 
_The_ majority is women, "the majority is the subject while
in the sentence
The majority are _the_ women, "the women" is the subject.

In both cases we have subject/verb agreement.


----------



## virr2

ireney said:


> virr, we disagreed about whether "it" being a dummy subject in some cases "precludes" the existence of another, "normal" subject



In my other post in that thread I said that the subject of the sentence "It is typical for people *to get depressed*" is the infinitive.
So, a total agreement that a dummy subject doesn't rule out the existance of another subject 



ireney said:


> Bearing in mind what I said about my background in sentence analysis, what I did was disagreeing about majority/women.
> 
> I think that in the sentence
> _The_ majority is women, "the majority is the subject while
> in the sentence
> The majority are _the_ women, "the women" is the subject.
> 
> In both cases we have subject/verb agreement.



Quirk _in A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language _argues that in ‘*The majority are Moslems’* the use of plural is the only acceptable number for the verb and claims: ‘The choice of the verb number is explicitly dictated by the complement rather than subject" and "Use of singular would be considered unacceptable ...’

Later on he says that 'when the complement is replaced with another clausal element, the verb number changes to what is in agreement with the morphology of the head of the subject (a singular noun),e.g.
"The majority agrees with me"


----------



## Giordano Bruno

gotitadeleche said:


> Collective nouns take singular verbs in US English, unless you are trying to stress the individual members of the group. So:
> The crew is...
> The team plays...
> The band performs...
> The congregation earns...
> 
> If there is more than one group, if we are speaking of more than one congregation, then the plural is used.
> The congregations pray...
> 
> I believe the rules are different in British English.


 
No.  The rules are no different for BE.  What you say is perfectly correct.  I don't think of it as a 'rule' however.  If you are thinking of the congregation as a whole, the grammar module in your brain will direct you to say "is".  If you are thinking of the individual members of the congregation, you will automatically say "are".


----------



## virr2

Giordano Bruno said:


> No. The rules are no different for BE. What you say is perfectly correct. I don't think of it as a 'rule' however.



But it is a rule and it has a name  - notional concord.


----------



## river

In non-count situations such as _congregation_ or _student body_, the singular verb is usually preferred (or so it seems to me): Ninety percent of the congregation is sober.  Ten percent of the student body is drunk.

I would use _are_ in the original sentence, though.


----------



## Forero

"I heard a minister say that 99% of his congregation *were* earning their salvation."

To use _was_ (or _is_), we would have to change _their_ to _its_.  I prefer the plural version.

In "the majority is/are women", "women" is not the subject but the complement because it follows the verb.  "The majority" can be singular or plural, depending on what it is the majority of:

_The majority of moviegoers are women.
The majority of humanity is women. _(unless "humanity" is plural)


----------



## juanmamej

Outsider said:


> The full expression is "ninety nine percent". "Ninety nine" is a numeral, and numerals can be subjects, sometimes.
> But I suppose in the case of percentages "x percent of" is seen as a partitive expression, and that's why people regard the noun "the congregation" as the subject of the sentence.


 
But then, if the percentage is more than one, why do I say? :
10% of 50 *is *5.   AND NOT    10% of 50* are *5.
I like the idea of looking at the subject and not the quantifier, because although the number is more than one, the subject is a unit as a whole, therefore singular for the verb.


----------



## panjandrum

juanmamej said:


> But then, if the percentage is more than one, why do I say? :
> 10% of 50 *is *5.   AND NOT    10% of 50* are *5.
> I like the idea of looking at the subject and not the quantifier, because although the number is more than one, the subject is a unit as a whole, therefore singular for the verb.


Now you are asking a very different question.
You are asking about how to state a mathematical identity, not an English sentence.
10% of 50, the number, _is _5.
10% of the 50 people in our club_ are_ going to Cornwall.


----------



## atsamo

Cath.S. said:


> My two cents:
> percent cannot be the subject as it is an adverb.


 
It is a very important note and somehow ignored in this fascinating conversation.


----------



## Twoflower

The English language allows many of the combinations set out above. The grammar may seem confused, but a brief application of real-world common sense sorts it all out. In searching  for grammatical perfection, we should not ignore our own good sense.  Sometimes, that's all we have to go on. We just have to write or say  something that makes sense and doesn't jar the reader or listener.

In this case, the logical conclusion of the original sentence being  singular is this:

"I heard a minister say that 99% of his congregation is earning its salvation." 

This is nonsense by anyone's definition, and merits no further discussion.


----------



## Forero

Twoflower said:


> "I heard a minister say that 99% of his congregation is earning its salvation."
> 
> This is nonsense by anyone's definition, and merits no further discussion.


This is not nonsense by most American definitions. When _congregation_ refers to the body rather than the members, it is singular. In such a case, 99% of it is also singular.


----------



## panjandrum

I wouldn't for a moment suggest that "99% of the congregation is earning its salvation" is nonsense.  It is strange to me, but then the topic of collective nouns and their treatment in AE/BE has been the cause of many threads here.

As a matter of curiosity, though, how do AE speakers grammatically determine the antecedent for "it" in sentences such as this?

In the topic sentence, _99% of the congregation is earning its salvation_, it is logical that "it" refers to "99% of the congregation".

In another very similarly-structured sentence, _20% of the congregation contributes 80% of its income_, it is logical that "it" refers to "the congregation" or the unspoken but implicit church to which the congregation belongs.  

I expect that AE speakers rely on common sense to understand the difference.

I can see another meaning for the second sentence, that the members in that 20% each contribute 80% of their income to the congregation, but that is sufficiently implausible not to be seriously considered.  In BE, there is no such ambiguity because we would express this meaning as _20% of the congregation contribute 80% of their income_.


----------



## Forero

Since we have the option to take _congregation_ as plural, we Americans can make the same distinction. I prefer the plural in the original sentence.

But I would not bat an eye at something like:

_20% of the congregation approves of the new minister._


----------



## jdotjdot89

Forero said:


> Since we have the option to take _congregation_ as plural, we Americans can make the same distinction.


 
Since when do we have the option to take "congregation" as plural? It's a collective noun and therefore singular. 

Would you say "The congregation are ready to pray now"? No, no more than you'd ever say "The luggage are in the trunk."


----------



## jdotjdot89

As for the issue regarding percentages, that's very similar. I'm surprised at the length of the discussion about it. For singular nouns (whether singular or collective nouns) it is singular, and for plurals it is plural.

Examples:
_50% of the books *are* blue._
_20% of the luggage *is* gone._
_20% of the suitcases *are* gone._

_70% of the suitcase *is* full._

Note here the difference:
_40% of the suitcase is full._ would mean that 40% of one suitcase has been packed.
_40% of the suitcases are full._ would mean that each suitcase of that 40% has been fully packed.
_40% of the luggage is full._ means the same as the previous sentence.


For "majority," you have the option.
_The majority of the people *have* fallen ill._ (referring to "people")
_The majority of the people *has* fallen ill._ (referring to "majority")


----------



## panjandrum

jdotjdot89 said:


> Since when do we have the option to take "congregation" as plural? It's a collective noun and therefore singular.


... but not always.
For other examples of the differences between AE and BE on this question see collective nouns


> Would you say "The congregation are ready to pray now"? No, no more than you'd ever say "The luggage are in the trunk."


Perhaps I wouldn't consider the congregation plural in that example, but I would, in other contexts.


----------



## JulianStuart

jdotjdot89 said:


> Since when do we have the option to take "congregation" as plural? It's a collective noun and therefore singular.
> 
> Would you say "The congregation are ready to pray now"? No, no more than you'd ever say "The luggage are in the trunk."



Which of the three choices below would be the expected one depends on the AmE vs BrE difference, which is relatively clear cut (that link of panj's will keep you busy for a while  ).  I wouldn't choose number one, using "it" for the congregation sounds strange to me. Would AmE speakers choose 1) or 3)?  Most BrE speakers, I think, would choose 2).

1) 
"*Is* the congregation ready to pray yet?"
"No, *it* is not all here yet!"
2)
"*Are* the congregation ready to pray yet?"
"No, *they* are not all here yet!"
3)
"*Is* the congregation ready to pray yet?"
"No, *they* are not all here yet!"


----------



## jdotjdot89

AE speakers (at least from my part of the country) would pick (3).  It sounds contradictory, I know, but that's because the *is* and the *they* are referring to different things.  *Is* refers to "the congregation," and *they* refers to the implicit "people" or "members of the congregation" in the next sentence.

The real issue here just from what sounds right in my head is the pronoun.  You could respond either "No, they're not here yet" or "No, the congregation isn't here yet" but not "No, it's not here yet."  The *it* makes it sound like you're talking about an object when you are actually referring to people.  I don't know if the same would apply if we were discussing a different collective noun.


----------



## JulianStuart

I'm a dual citizen, bilingual, and have learnt (sic ) both ways.  I see you understand the "contradictory"-seeming AmE way - it follows the _grammar_ of singular and plural, while the BrE sees plural people in both cases (whether it's the word or the pronoun), and feels comfortable with a collective being either singular or plural depending on the _sense_, as you illustrated at the end of post #56 for majority.


----------



## Robds

panjandrum said:


> Now you are asking a very different question.
> You are asking about how to state a mathematical identity, not an English sentence.
> 10% of 50, the number, _is _5.
> 10% of the 50 people in our club_ are_ going to Cornwall.


I well the statement is really  incorrect biblically and therefore  grammatically. Salvation is a one time event,  and to earn means to work salvation is a  free gift of God  . So it would not be continuous.  The  congregation  has  or have received salvation   or has been saved!  So have or has is the issue


----------



## Hildy1

"I heard a minister say that 99% of his congregation were earning their salvation."

Since the people are presumably earning their salvation individually, not collectively, the verb should be plural.

If you picture all these people entering heaven all together as a tour group with a group admission, you might express it differently. Still, would you really say the following:
"I heard a minister say that 99% of his congregation was earning its salvation."


----------

