"Be" isn't more archaic. "Be" is the present subjunctive and "were" is the past subjunctive. Normally, a wish for something contrary to fact, as in the example being discussed, would use the past subjunctive: “My mother wishes my child were like me.” The present subjunctive is used with "that" clauses for commands, intentions, necessity, not wishes. For example: "My mother insists that my child be like me." Both are examples of the subjunctive, but one states merely a desire the other a demand.

I think most people would say "My mother wishes my child would be like me" (or ...could...etc.); however, "My mother wishes my child be like me", with "be" replacing "is" to reflect a wish for something that is not presently so, is correctly using the subjunctive, as you mentioned. There are quite a few other ways the same sentiment could be expressed, but that doesn't make your example wrong.

Now, wait a minute. You said "...one of his GIRLZFRENDZ..." Is this a typo or is the extra Z the "linguistic innovation" you are describing? Did you actually hear "...one of his girlZZZZZfrendZZZZ? Two Z sounds? If so, then this changes everything. This could only mean "It is one of his girl's friends', " meaning that the car belongs to one of the friends of his "girl" (girl, meaning his girlfriend, colloquially). Then again, I suppose it's also possible that you're suggesting that it's some sort of new text-message-esque teen-speak shorthand for something, considering your alternate spelling, what with Z's, missing I's, and all.

Boy, I wish I had time to really weigh in on this, but I am compelled to make some quick comments. This is getting just plain silly. First of all, as John said, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with ambiguity. Language is loaded with it. It's the very basis of most poetry, literature, and art. Usually, ambiguity is resolved purely by the context. As long as it doesn't actively interfere with successful comprehension, it's not a problem (it still isn't grammatically incorrect; it's a matter of style).

In any case, far too many words are being thrown around here incorrectly. "One of the most" is not ambiguous in any way. It is imprecise but not ambiguous. They're two different concepts. There is nothing grammatically or contextually incorrect about being imprecise. If I say "I'm eating some chicken", that isn't incorrect. I am not obliged to say "I am eating 3-1/4 ounces of chicken." There is no grammatical rule or even a social contract that dictates what level of detail I have to give in any statement. I suppose some of you think the word "some" should never be used in English because it doesn't connote an exact quantity? Nonsense. Any logical objection to "one of the most" based on imprecision or ambiguity would equally apply to "one of the more." In fact, this mode of thinking would suggest that qualitative discourse about anything is somehow "not allowed". This is ridiculous. Furthermore, "one of the most" and "one of the more" don't mean the same thing. Qualitatively and in this context, "more" is further down the totem pole of exclusivity.

While we're at it, all sorts of examples have been claimed to be bad syntax. These claims are poorly formed. They should be claiming bad semantics, not bad syntax. Truth be told, most of the "bad" examples are perfectly fine, both semantically and syntactically. Regardless, please get the words right.

The objections towards "one of the most" are mostly misguided. If there is any issue at all, it would be the one that Dyske brought up. Some (few) people object to the use of superlatives in a wider encompassing fashion. The claim is that there can be only one "best", etc. This doesn't hold up to closer scrutiny, but that's for another discussion. Also, most can mean "a large majority of". It doesn't have to mean "THE most". Any other objections about quantity, ambiguity, logic, mathematics, etc., are just a red herring.

It's also disingenuous to argue a prescriptive viewpoint over a descriptive one as if the descriptive one didn't even exist. It seems to be rather ignorant, especially as modern linguistics is pretty much based on descriptivism (mind you, personally, I lean towards prescriptivism, myself).

Gee, I guess this turned into more than a few comments. I just couldn't help myself.

I visited the link of the Japanese program. As I don't speak Japanese, most of it was beyond me, but I did glean that it's a game show of some sort, not a news or educational program. Also, it seems that the show is more concerned with sensationalism than accurate reporting. Note, the program shows a quote from the book:

...Peter thins them out;
---------------------------------
a grownup dies; and Peter was killing them off vindictively as fast as possible.
Then having given the necessary instructions to the Redskins...

This is extremely dishonest and misleading, and demonstrates that the program's producers are only interested in sensational headlines, not actually informing their viewers. The quote is actually two different quotes from two different sections of the book, combined and taken out of context. In particular, the second part "a grownup dies; and Peter was killing them off...", in the book, is clearly referring to Peter's distaste for adults and has nothing to do with killing off his band of aging kids (or anyone else for that matter). The full quote is:

"...he was so full of wrath against grown-ups, who, as usual, were spoiling everything, that as soon as he got inside his tree he breathed intentionally quick short breaths at the rate of about five to a second. He did this because there is a saying in the Neverland that, every time you breathe, a grown-up dies; and Peter was killing them off vindictively as fast as possible."

Peter isn't actually killing anyone. He's imagining doing so simply by breathing in and out quickly.

To address your original question, "thins them out" clearly means reducing their ranks like thinning out a herd of animals, but metaphorically, this could mean anything. It could just as likely refer to them being killed by pirates, or leaving Neverland upon growing up, or being banished or shunned, etc. While it does sound ominous and a bit disturbing, it's vague enough to leave the details to the reader's imagination (typical Barrie, yes?). While it's been a while since I've read it, I don't think there's anything else in the book that truly suggests that Peter is doing in his cohorts. In fact, elsewhere in the book or in later works, aren't they revisited as adults?

Of course book is a different word. I was making an analogy solely (and correctly) to exemplify the comparative use of the prepositions of and on, "of" indicating specificity and "on" meaning "the subject of which is".

To reiterate, I'm comparing study, the activity of educating oneself, to study, the body of information created from an investigation. I'm suggesting the latter's use with "on" might be ok (By the way, Google vote: "A study on" yields five million plus entries. It's certainly common usage). Even with the latter, "study of" and "study on" don't mean exactly the same thing. That doesn't make one of them wrong.

While, technically, the answer is ambiguous, I think that Dyske's choice #1 (he has many girlfriends, and the car belongs to one of them) is the one that makes the most sense. If he only had one girlfriend, then the answer would have been "It's his girlfriend's." I think this would be true even if the girlfriend had more than one car. The original question is about who actually owns it, not how many cars they have. How many cars the girlfriend might have and which one it is is irrelevant to the question asked. If "...one...", meant "...one of her cars...", then it would be superfluous information.

Also Karl, perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but what does "If it were just...it might be easier to interpret this sentence." mean in your original post? You said this was heard in the park. Spoken. All three are usually pronounced the same, so what would make you think there were no apostrophes?

It's a matter of context and the desired meaning of the preposition. Compare:

"I wrote a book of poetry" (I wrote a book which consists of poems)

with:

"I wrote a book on poetry" (I wrote an instruction book about how to write poetry)

I don't think it's so much as to whether study is a noun, but which particular noun. If you're using study to mean the act of learning a particular discipline, I would say "...study of..." as in "The study of medicine requires a lifelong commitment". If, on the other hand, you're using study to mean a particular documented investigation, then maybe "study on" might be ok, say, something like "The environmental study on fish populations in the North Atlantic demonstrates the effects of global warming." I have nothing to back this up with, just an opinion as to which feels right.

I don't think transitive vs. intransitive is what Dr. Mc is looking for. Transitive vs. intransitive only has to do with whether or not the verb takes an object. In "I ate yesterday", "ate" is intransitive. In "I ate pizza yesterday", "ate" is transitive.

The terms you're looking for are action verbs and state-of-being verbs. The terms are somewhat self-explanatory. Action verbs describe, well, actions: to run, to go, to eat, etc.

State-of-being verbs are sometimes called linking verbs because they can link the subject of a sentence with something that describes it. The verb "to be" in its various forms is a state-of-being verb. "I am hungry" describes my physical state, not some action that I am engaging in. If "I tasted the pizza", then "tasted" would be an action verb. If "The pizza tasted good", then "tasted" would be a state-of-being or linking verb.