James Kilpatrick wrote thus yesterday:

In one form or another, "none" has been around since the 12th century. It always has taken both singular and plural verbs. But at least in my nonage as a reporter, "none" was always singular, and don't you forget it.

The old order changeth, et cetera, et cetera. Over the past three years, my random eye has picked up only a single example of "none is" or "none has."

Is my impression on target? Have we seen the last of "none is" and "none has"? Evidence of current usage would find me, as always, gratefully yours.

Well, here are almost 600 hits to disprove Kirkpatrick's impression, all from the press of the last month. But can we take the analysis any further, and determine any sort of pattern in the usages of none as singular or plural?

People's impressions are often wrong. Use of none with mass nouns takes the singular.

1. None of the wheat was tainted.
2. *None of the wheat were tainted.

With count nouns, it seems either way goes.

3. None of the students is smart.
4. None of the students are smart.