I was always taught that the easy way to remember that the formation "None is" is correct is to think of "none" as "not one." The phrasing "not one is" is clearly correct.

However I was greatly cheered to hear a discussion on NPR a while back where someone said, with all the confidence in the world, that the easy way to place the correct phrasing was simply to remember that this previously mentioned rule is 100% hooey. The phrasing "None are" is perfectly acceptable.

Or so he said. My question - What do you all think? This came up today in a workshopping comment on the OEDILF site when someone claimed that "None of my limericks is autobiographical." (It was a rather steamy piece and the validity of the author's claim is neither here nor there.)

Granted, "of my limericks" is a prepositional phrase and, as such, has no bearing on the choice between "is" or "are" but, to me anyway, "are" is definitely correct here. "None of my limericks" points not to just one but to many and so "are" is the winner.

Of course, if you wanted to say "Not one of my limericks...", for emphasis maybe, then yes, certainly, it's "is."


I rest my case...

I am sure I will be refuted by the flexmarians here, as I call them, but I do think that 'none' must be considered a singular subject. Since there were many who disagreed with me (except for Richard) that the 'nurse' and 'their' usage is wrong, I assume the same people will feel more relaxed about 'none are.'

I am anxious to see!

But 'none' isn't 'not one'. They're different words, and grammar for one can't be expected to apply to the other.

Also, 'none' isn't 'none of them' and what sounds right for one might not necessarily sound as good for the other. 'None at all' might be different too. All you can do is try out which sound right to you.

Also, bear in mind the referent can be singular (mass) or plural (count). Is there any milk left? No, none is left. Are there any peanuts left? No, none are left. The room for debate is only over the plural referent: How many of those children are going to the party? None are going. ?None is going. None of them are going. None of them is going.

To my ear 'None is going' sounds rather odd, but 'None of them is going' mollifies it, and feels more distributive: you're thinking perhaps that for each child, it isn't going, whereas with plural agreement there might be more of a sense that as a group they're not to go. These are the sort of stylistic nuances I'd debate with myself if I found I was writing something in which both were about equally acceptable. If I clearly felt one sounded better than the other, of course, I'd use that.

<me too>The preceding post by aput sums up pretty well what I feel.</me too>

But 'none' isn't 'not one'.

Nicely put, aput! Yes, I agree. Me, too. &c.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jheem:
_But 'none' isn't 'not one'._

Nicely put, aput! Yes, I agree. Me, too. &c.

---

Ditto

Well, I strongly disagree!

[just kidding! How can I disagree with aput anyway?]

This one you got me on, aput: Are there any peanuts left? No, none are left. If I used that sentence, I would have to say 'none are left.' You are right. However, I would say 'there aren't any left.' Even in that case, 'none are left' sounds slightly off to me. However, 'none is left' is clearly wrong.

One last comment about But 'none' isn't 'not one'. Are the dictionaries wrong? While I do understand more clearly now that 'none' has various meanings, surely 'not one' is one of them.

Hmmmpph! I'm mildly disappointed. I was sure that at least one person was going to wrap him/herself in the flag of pedantry and hotly embrace the "None = not one" argument.

Oh, well. It appears to be a complete shutout and I'm on the winning side so I suppose I should be happy with that.

I was sure that at least one person was going to wrap him/herself in the flag of pedantry and hotly embrace the "None = not one" argument.

But, it clearly means "not one." So, why the pedantry?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
One last comment about But 'none' isn't 'not one'. Are the dictionaries wrong? While I do understand more clearly now that 'none' has various meanings, surely 'not one' is one of them.

---

Dictionaries wrong? No, never!

Of course one meaning of none is "not one". But it's not the only meaning. Look at the link you posted. It gives 3 meanings of the pronoun none: "not one", "not any", and "no part"; and 2 meanings of the adverb none:"not at all", "in no way". And read the Usage Note. It clearly states that none can be singular or plural in many cases, and in some cases can be only plural.

The OED Online goes even further and says none has most often been used with a plural verb:

quote:

---

A. pron.
Many commentators state that none should take singular concord, but this has generally been less common than plural concord, especially between the 17th and 19th centuries.

---

Tinman

Verb pairing with none is one of those lovely little situations you study very early on in psycholinguistics. The lesson to be learned is that form and function are often quite different when it comes to language. There may well be a "rule" as there is here: none is obviously a singular pronoun. However, usage has been since about the 9th century that the pronoun is either singular or plural. It depends on the referrent.

"We searched for the missing hikers, but none were found." "We wanted steak, but none <b>was</b> found."

Usage over time takes precedence over rules, and ultimately creates a new rule. In this case, the first rule is that none is a singular pronoun. The second rule is that singular pronouns require singular verbs. However, the new rule, created by common usage (a kind of linguistic easement if you will), is that if the referrent noun is plural, then the subsequent "none" will be paired with a plural verb. Likewise if the referrent is singular the subsequent verb will be singular.

Language is not static. It grows and changes. What is most interesting and exciting about it is that even the most chaotic language, when employed regularly by a large group, has rules and structure. Ebonics is my favorite example for this. It sounds erratic, ungrammatical, and chaotic. Nevertheless, serious study shows it to have readily identifiable syntactic rules and a clear structure.

On a final note, grammar "rules" are not the same as syntax rules. Syntax looks at words as they are used and identifies their function. It is kind of after the fact if you will. Grammar attempts to proscribe word usage before we speak or write. In the long run, syntax wins out over grammar if you are trying to understand the why and how of human language usage. All else is proscription.