Personally, I would write "I am one of those fossils who have ...", because I think that the relative clause properly refers to fossils (i.e. we have a plural who).

There may be cases where the relative clause can apply to the singular one", or the singular is used by some because a plural verb would detract from the singular nature of what is being expressed, but if there is a choice I would also tend to use the plural to avoid distracting people who do not recognize that possibility.

Ich würde das wie Mike sehen. Auch im Dt. sind beide grammat. Kontruktionen möglich (aber durch unterschiedl. Relativpronomen ersichtlicher):
Ich bin einer dieser Dinosaurier/Leute,...
- der ... hat
- die ... haben

Auch der Google-Count bevorzugt die Pluralform (zumindest, wenn es um Idioten geht;-)
I am one of those idiots who ...
...have : 1.840 
...has : 372

Grammatically, it must be "has" and not have. The relative clause is referring back to "one of those fossils" (singular). But as the other answers here show, people mess this up all the time. In speech, I would say it doesn't matter. In writing, it should/must be "has."

I also think it should be the plural. There are several fossils who have a cord telephone, and I am one of them.

I am one of [those fossils who have a cord telephone].

I disagree with Nick (US). I think the relative pronoun refers to 'fossils' (only), and it's plural.

Grammatically, it must be "has" and not have. The relative clause is referring back to "one of those fossils" (singular).

Und warum bitte, Nick, soll sich der Relativsatz nicht auf "fossils" beziehen können?

Hier nochmal Google-Relationen für den Satz mit 'people':

I am one of those people who ...
...have : 1.280.000
...has : 139.000 

Cambridge Guide to English Usage says:

"Likewise singular or plural verbs can be used after one of those people who. ...
Usage commentators in the UK and the US have been inclined to say it should be plural; and the Harper-Heritage usage panel voted heavily in its favour (78%). ... Writers using the singular take their cue from one, whereas the plural-users are responding to those."

sorry I asked, and thanks for the answers :-)

Noch ein grundsätzlicher Artikel zum Thema:
http://www.oxonianreview.org/wp/one-of-those-...
(Vorsicht: inkl. frecher Bemerkungen zu behaupteten amerikanischen Grammatikschwächen;-)

OT @ 7, es liegt am 'who'! Das kommt davon, wenn man keine deklinierende Sprache mehr haben will *hihi* scnr

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage gives evidence for both and makes no distinction for AE or BE usage (though a quick look at this thread's answers looks like preference goes down national lines). It also points out that it depends on if you take the cue from one or those. A lot of comments here seem to support the plural usage, so I'll point out that MWDEU traces the singular to Old English through Shakespeare and modern writers, while not coming down on any one side.

Personally, I think I tend to use the singular. My recommendation would be to pick one and be consistent.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC...

Plural does seem to make more sense, but I think if you had caught me unawares I might have said singular. Now I'm really not sure.

Maybe it depends partly on whether you say you are the thing in question, in which case it's singular because you really mean only you, or whether you say you're not one of those people, in which case you really mean they do it.

I'm not one of those people who are always certain about grammar.
I'm one of those people who always has to think twice about grammar.

No, when I write it like that the singular looks wrong. But still I might have said it nevertheless.



Here's another one that I changed my mind on in midstream:

>>it's interesting that similar themes occur in so many others of his works.

First I had 'other,' then I changed it, but now I think I may have been right the first time.

"others" - really? It looks wrong, even if, grammatically speaking, it may be right.

The actual sentence I was thinking of was:
I am one of those fossils who have been married for almost 30 years to the same person :-)

It does seem very unusual these days.

For me the plural is entirely logical [referring to 12]:

There are people who are always certain about grammar.
But I'm not one of those people.

Combined: I'm not one of those people who are always certain about grammar.

#12 ">>it's interesting that similar themes occur in so many others of his works."

That is interesting.

For some reason, I think, I would use the singular "other" with the inanimate "works" but I would possibly use the plural with animate "others" (I think "others" can often be used alone, not followed by "of" in this sense).

I somehow feel that "other of" is an older idiom and the intonation may be different with "others". I currently feel confident that I would use "others" when followed by "among".

"Similar themes occur in so many other of his works."
"I find the same trait in so many others of his friends."
"I find the same trait in so many others among his friends."

Now I'm not sure any more.
Perhaps it's interference from "Similar themes occur in so many other works of his."

#12: >>it's interesting that similar themes occur in so many others of his works. First I had 'other,' then I changed it, but now I think I may have been right the first time.

That one's easy ;-)... I'd sidestep the issue and write/say: it's interesting that similar themes occur in so many of his other works

:-)