Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Grammar Police. 'None is' or 'None are'?

C

commonpeople

macrumors regular
Original poster
This topic came up in one of the other threads today.
I've seen lots of convincing arguments, but which is correct?
Is there a difference between US and British English in this regard?
Thanks.
 
this is just sad. it depends on the context. are is for plural, is is for singular. this is not difficult people!
 
virus1 said:
this is just sad. it depends on the context. are is for plural, is is for singular. this is not difficult people!
Click to expand...

'None' is the subject. How can 'none' be plural?
 
I can't think of an instance where "none" would refer to a singular antecedent. (I'd be happy to be proven wrong, I just can't think of any off hand.) So it would be 'none are.' But I can't speak to whether this is different in England.
 
Heb1228 said:
I can't think of an instance where "none" would refer to a singular antecedent. (I'd be happy to be proven wrong, I just can't think of any off hand.) So it would be 'none are.' But I can't speak to whether this is different in England.
Click to expand...
Sounds right to me....

"None [of those sweaters] are blue."
 
Long-time reader, first-time poster. I don't really have much expertise where macs are concerned, but i've been browsing here ever since I decided I wanted a powerbook G5 😉
However, this stuff is more my line of work

Anyhoo, from the OED (as good a reference as any):

"none

• pronoun 1 not any. 2 no one.

• adverb (none the) with comparative by no amount: none the wiser.

— USAGE Some traditionalists maintain that none can only take a singular verb (as in none of them is coming tonight rather than none of them are coming tonight). However, none is descended from Old English nan meaning ‘not one’, and has been used for around a thousand years with either a singular or a plural verb, depending on the context and the emphasis needed."

As for a singular example, how about "To get the PBG5 to market, Apple could have made it from asbestos, made it five inches thick and stuffed it with fans, or just enclosed a free bag of ice with every unit, none of which is an acceptable solution."

It can be 'none is' or 'none are', and anyone interested enough to post in a thread about it is probably going to choose the right one for the context.
 
"None of the prisoners was given his soup. It is true that none is etymologically derived from the Old English word n, “one,” but the word has been used as both a singular and a plural noun from Old English onward. The plural usage appears in the King James Bible as well as the works of John Dryden and Edmund Burke and is widespread in the works of respectable writers today. Of course, the singular usage is perfectly acceptable. "

Behold! The power of the Dictionary.com!

I thought it was only used in the plural sense but I guess singular is acceptable too.
 
Correct usage #1: None of the bread is fresh. (Singular noun "bread" takes singular conjugation)

Correct usage #2: None of the loaves of bread are fresh. (Plural noun "loaves" takes plural conjugation)

Look at whatever your "none" is referring to; if it can't be broken down into smaller parts (bread, people, etc), use the singular. If it can, use the plural.
 
theviceofreason said:
As for a singular example, how about "To get the PBG5 to market, Apple could have made it from asbestos, made it five inches thick and stuffed it with fans, or just enclosed a free bag of ice with every unit, none of which is an acceptable solution."
Click to expand...
Thanks. I appreciate such a clear cut example of the 'singular' use.
 
Brought direct to you from the OSX dictionary ...

"USAGE It is sometimes held that none can take only a singular verb, never a plural verb:: none of them is coming tonight, rather than | none of them are coming tonight. There is little justification, historical or grammatical, for this view. None is descended from Old English n?n, meaning ‘not one,’ and has been used for around a thousand years with both a singular and a plural verb, depending on the context and the emphasis needed."

So ... both "is" or "are" would be correct.
 
theviceofreason said:
Long-time reader, first-time poster. I don't really have much expertise where macs are concerned, but i've been browsing here ever since I decided I wanted a powerbook G5 😉
However, this stuff is more my line of work

Anyhoo, from the OED (as good a reference as any):

"none

• pronoun 1 not any. 2 no one.

• adverb (none the) with comparative by no amount: none the wiser.

— USAGE Some traditionalists maintain that none can only take a singular verb (as in none of them is coming tonight rather than none of them are coming tonight). However, none is descended from Old English nan meaning ‘not one’, and has been used for around a thousand years with either a singular or a plural verb, depending on the context and the emphasis needed."

As for a singular example, how about "To get the PBG5 to market, Apple could have made it from asbestos, made it five inches thick and stuffed it with fans, or just enclosed a free bag of ice with every unit, none of which is an acceptable solution."

It can be 'none is' or 'none are', and anyone interested enough to post in a thread about it is probably going to choose the right one for the context.
Click to expand...

That seems like a good authority. I've always been confused about this since my english teacher (15 yrs ago) told us that 'none are' is correct on the somewhat reasonable grounds that 'none' should be singular.

Even if none is a contracted version of 'not-one', it is still not obviously a singular or plural. Plus- just to throw the spanner in the works- isn't 'not-one' synonymous with any value which isn't unity- i.e. 4.5 is 'not-one'.

Anyway- I think I'm satisfied that 'none are' is safe to use, even in the US.

Thanks.
 
The American Heritage® Book of English Usage. said:
A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English. 1996.

“… and then there were none.” The closing words of this well-known nursery rhyme should dispel the notion that none can only take a singular verb. People opposing the plural use base their argument on the fact that none comes from the Old English word an, meaning “one.” But the citational evidence against restricting none is overwhelming. None has been used as both a singular and plural pronoun since the ninth century. The plural usage appears in the King James Bible as well as the works of John Dryden and Edmund Burke and is widespread in the works of respected writers today.

Of course, the singular usage is perfectly acceptable. Whether you should choose a singular or plural verb depends on the effect you want. You can use either a singular or a plural verb in a sentence such as None of the conspirators has (or have) been brought to trial. However, none can only be plural when used in sentences such as None but his most loyal supporters believe (not believes) his story.
Click to expand...

More here.

Grammar, of course, is a fraud. If it sounds better, it'll be that way ...
 
commonpeople said:
'None' is the subject. How can 'none' be plural?
Click to expand...

It's an indefinate pronoun, so it can be plural or singular. How can it be plural? It's determined by what it's referring to. If I'm referring to one thing it's "none is," if to multiple things it's "none are."
I wouldn't say "none of the people is blue." I know it should be "are" because it's referring to people, which is plural.
For singular it would be "None of the person is blue."
 
devilot said:
Thanks. I appreciate such a clear cut example of the 'singular' use.
Click to expand...
I agree... I was clearly proven wrong on this one. Thinking about it being a shortened form of "not one" makes it much easier to see the singular usage.
 
None [of which] is.. works

None is.. doesn't work.

I rest my case on the "none is" not working.

None are.. works without anything added.
 
Neb154 said:
None [of which] is.. works

None is.. doesn't work.

I rest my case on the "none is" not working.

None are.. works without anything added.
Click to expand...
This makes sense too! I'm changing my mind back to my original answer!😱

Whenever you use 'is,' none needs a modifier... like 'none of the conspirators is' (to use an earlier example) thus making the verb refer to the group, hence plural.
 
thedude110 said:
Grammar, of course, is a fraud.
Click to expand...

Like Heb1228- I appreciate this.

Clever comment of the day.😀

Perhaps expand on it with :

"Gammer is a frawd - Speling is wear it's at"
 
Heb1228 said:
This makes sense too! I'm changing my mind back to my original answer!😱

Whenever you use 'is,' none needs a modifier... like 'none of the conspirators is' (to use an earlier example) thus making the verb refer to the group, hence plural.
Click to expand...

nope.

You can use it as "none is" in that sequence.

Let's give it a go, off the top of my head:

me said:
It's amazing what $12,000 worth of motorcycle can do compared to an automobile. You can take your pick -- a Porsche, Ferrari (non-Formula One) or Lamborghini retailing for ten to thirty times the cost -- and throw it up against a store-bought superbike but none is able to keep up.

I flipped through the channels. Lots of them. 265 of them. I flip past shopping shows, movies, a news show, a sports show, a nature programme with lions and more but none is quite what I'm looking for.
Click to expand...

In these instances, none is referring to a singular of "not one" where the plural would not fit because of the context.

It's exclusive in describing "none" as one specific object.
 
Neb154 said:
None [of which] is.. works

None is.. doesn't work.

I rest my case on the "none is" not working.

None are.. works without anything added.
Click to expand...

Au contraire.

"Which part of this cheese is still edible?"
"None is."

It does work.
 
I don't see how it would be singular.

Q: "Are the sweaters red"
A: "None of them are red"

Are is none is talking about the sweaters, which is plural, so then by my rules "none" is plural.
 
Star Trek

nagromme said:
I think BOTH "is" and "are" can be correct with "none"... And isn't "none" derived from "not one?" So "not one are" doesn't work, but "not one is" does 🙂

Sorry to drag out the O/T.

Actually, it's more video iPod tomfoolery. I'm not sorry 🙂
Click to expand...

'Where no man has gone before. --> Where no one has gone before.

could be read as --> Where none have gone before.

clearly none = no one, in this case

English is full of exceptions. Even for the English. 🙂

As for the use in England of using single nouns to refer to compound nouns as in Apple vs. Apple's employees, colloquial (localised) usage does not change its correctness. If that means that I am saying that all those who speak English in England are wrong, then they are wrong. However, having been born there I can assure everyone that not all people living in England and speaking Englsih make this mistake.

Also, given the large number of dialects in the country, it is folly to assume that usage in England is gramatically correct. Those who are old enough may recall that the BBC originally refused to air Seseme Street because it thought the quality of language used in the show was bellow par. At that time the BBC had a mandate to improve the quality of the language through example. This implies that the BBC recognized the poor use of the language throughout the country. So whoever is sighting European usage as an excuse for simply bad grammer, go learn a thing or two before being so arogant as to assume that if you and your peers do it, it must be correct.

As for Canadians, of which I am also one, we consistently waver back and forth between the English and American, never really knowning which particular influence we are sprouting at any given time.

Twenty years ago our influence was mostly European and thus we were taught the language with a more European flavour. Today, however, we are constantly bombarded by American programming and the usage has slipped, albeit sadly, to a flavour more American in nature. This slip toward American is also a result of new immigrants with little or no English skills who learn their Englsih from television programming which is mostly American.

And lastly, for those who don't know any better, you have sugery. Not a surgery. Not three surgeries. But sugergy.

Just one more sad day for the Empire. Rule Britannia!

~iGuy

p.s. this outburst, although regretably emotional, is not intended to offend, but enlighten, if anyone is offended, sobeit, i'm done with this thread 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back