A correspondent writes, apropos an earlier post,
"None" is singular[, as in "]If none of these choices IS accurate.["]
I hear elementary grammatical errors on National Public Radio, and realize it is not the standard setter it thinks it is.... I seldom tune into the conspiracy any more because you seem to have drifted from public issues to personal issues .... Still, I expected these opinions to be expressed correctly. Very disappointing ....
Well, returning to public issues, I should stress that all members of the public have a First Amendment right to be as disappointed as they please. But shifting from sentiment to substance, it seems to me that my correspondent's only legitimate objection is indeed only a "personal issue[]" — the correspondent's esthetic preference. When it comes to claims of objective "error[]" or "correct[ness]," the authorities that strike me as reputable, namely leading dictionaries of usage, take the view that "none" can be either plural or singular.
My favorite, the Merriam Webster Dictionary of English, for instance, reports that, "Clearly, 'none' has been both singular and plural since Old English and still is. The notion that it is singular only is a myth of unknown origin that appears to have arisen late in the 19th century." It buttresses its assertions with quotes from many sources, including the King James Version of the Bible, W.H. Auden, and G.K. Chesterton. Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Garner's A Dictionary of Modern American Usage, and the Harper Dictionary of Contemporary Usage take the same view.
So even if one takes the view that correct usage is decided by The Authorities rather than by common usage, here the prominent authorities seem to take the view that "none" can be either singular or plural. Before accepting assertions that the plural "none" is "error" or "[in]correct[]," we should ask exactly what authorities outweigh the dictionaries, Auden, and Chesterton. Likewise, before we accept the view that correct usage is decided by Abstract Logic rather than by common usage or authorities, we should ask why the none-as-singular-only view is indeed a logical imperative, as opposed to being an arbitrary assertion.
"None are acceptable."
"Not one are acceptable."
In some contexts, I think "none" is quite clearly singular. In other contexts, it may not be so clear. So I'm of at least two minds on this, and of them, none are quite made up.
My general rule is to rely on my gut instinct. If I find your usage awkward or revolting, the burden is on you to show that it's incorrect.
If the way I use a certain word turns out to be incorrect, then it's acceptable because it's in broad public use. If the way you use a certain word differs from the way I use it, and my way is correct, then your usage is unacceptable and I reserve the right to judge you for it.
Applying that to this situation, "none" can be either singular or plural.
That settles it as far as I'm concerned.
The idea that none is singular is one of those schoolmarmish bits of nonsense that is passed down by oral tradition, but only rarely finds its way into serious grammar books.
Webster's Dict of English Usage, which you cite, says that no one knows who invented this bit of folklore.
I like how Professor Volokh makes a plurality mistake in a post about plurality. [EV: D'oh! Fixed, thanks.]
If that's how you decide what's "correct," then by definition, 51% of the population can't be wrong.
But "none of these is free"/"none of these are free"? The second sounds better.
Sister Maria Goretti of the Sisters of St. Joseph. Take it up with her...if you have the sand. Don't say I didn't warn you.
That is, more than one. A simple analysis Based on this definition says that "none" cannot be plural since it is not more than one (less, in fact). To someone thinking logically it just doesn't make sense for it to be plural.
But then since when is language necessarily logical? Language is created and used by people who (unfortunately?) very often do not act logically. The fact is that if enough people say something a particular way it tends to become "correct" even if it doesn't make sense in the abstract.
I'm sure that the word for none is singular in Esperanto.
What exactly do you mean by "problem words"? If you mean "words that sound bad to me," that's between you and your ear. But if you're trying to make some claim that there's something wrong under some standard other than your esthetic one, what exactly is that standard? Indeed, the OED attests "loan" as a synonym for "lend" as far back as the 1200s, and certainly to the 1500s and 1600s. What's the "problem"?
KeithK: If your "simple analysis" used by "someone thinking logically" were right, then wouldn't "none" be incapable of being either singular or plural? And, if so, what then would we do? The logic of mathematics goes only so far with the English language, as your second-to-last paragraphs acknowledge.
Ah, and next you'll be telling us that "any" can be either singular or plural.
What next? Dogs and cats, living together???
Don't listen to the haters! I enjoy both the Conspiracy and NPR as much as ever. Look at how you turned lemons into lemonade with this fun post.
Worked for me!
By entymology, it IS true. However, since the plural usage apparently dates back to at least the ninth century, methinks person would have to be sitting on a most substantial cork to make a cause around it.
Well, yes, although "Is any of our children learning?" doesn't sound right to me, somehow.
I know that "none" was originally formed from a couple of Old English words that meant "no" and "one." Those words were not, however, "no" and "one." According to Webster's, they were "ne" and "an." The claim of error seems to me to derive from a mistaken belief (a belief held by my 11th grade English teacher) that "none" is just an abbreviation of the modern English words "no" and "one."
If there's a widespread, but incorrect, belief that "none" is singular ...
... and if the use of the singular "none" is unlikely to annoy those who think it can go either way, whereas the plural "none" will annoy those who think it must be singular ...
... and if such pedants might be the judges or clerks reading your briefs ...
... then which form should you use?
I believe the correct usage is "Cats and dogs, living together"
...and carried over to the modern form relatively intact.
~Q
EV: I originally typed "A simple (simplistic?) analysis" but then dropped the parenthetical because I didn't like the way it sounded. I agree with you that language isn't logical - even though that might occasionally offend the ear of some logically minded.
What about negative three? It isn't greater than one. Does that make it singular?
My thinking is:
* I have three muffins. I eat one.
* I have two muffins. I eat one.
* I have one muffin. I eat one.
* I have no muffins.
This makes me think that the only integer that is singular is one. All others - greater than one, zero, and negative - seem plural.
Has anybody else noticed that if you say muffin or read enough times in a row, it seems like a very strange word?
I'd also planned to cite the English proverb "There are none so blind as those who will not see" as an example of plural agreement with none, but a little googling turned up an even more interesting 1671 citation for that proverb that reads, "Ther's none so blind As those that will not see". In that version, none appears to be both singular (agreeing with is) and plural (agreeing with those), in the same sentence.
Mr. Hamilton's letter, in recommending "No, there are none" as a possible answer to the question, "are there any plums?", observes that if one had to say "there is none," the question would have to be either
I believe consistency is preferable to 'kinda sounds better in general usage.' "None of the children was hurt in the accident" does sound a bit odd, there's no question about it. I suppose we could create a rule that says the verb takes its number from the object to which 'none' refers (if any). In the example I just gave, since "children" is plural, the verb would therefore be plural (None of the children were hurt...).
I don't think people really think about it in casual speach, though, and just like the sound of a plural verb form following a plural noun and a singular verb form following a singular noun. "...children were..." and "...child was..." regardless of the context and structure of the whole sentence. That much I certainly disagree with.
Also, I could swear I've read a few grammar/style books that have stated "none" is singular. I can't cite one and I don't have any in front of me, but as an English major and a law school graduate I've read my fair share of English grammar and style books.
Anyway, just my 2 cents, Orin is free to disagree.
With respect to language, in the long run, this is basically true. If a majority adopt it, it will eventually be seen as correct.
I'm generally a pretty strong descriptivist when it comes to language, though there are a couple of things I can't deal with: 1) when people substitute similar-sounding words for others with a different meaning (e.g., most commonly I think, "flaunt" for "flout") and 2) expressions where the term is rendered nonsensical in the colloquial usage (e.g., "could care less" for "couldn't care less")
With none, use the singular verb when the word means "no one" or "not one."
[incorrect]: None of us are perfect.
[correct]: None of us is perfect.
A plural verb is commonly used when none suggests more than one thing or person.
[correct]: None are so fallible as those who are sure they're right.
If the object that "none" refers to is singular use the singular verb and if its plural, use the plural verb.
None of the sausages are moldy.
None of the sausage is moldy.
None of the guests were poisoned.
None of the water was poisoned.
Forget the grammatical errors for a moment. I want them to quit calling the second month of the year "Feb-oo-wary"!
"Many are called, but few are chosen."
"Well that's just not true at all. None is called, and none is chosen. Wait a minute, I meant to say 'none are called and none are chosen'."
As Bruce &Syd point out...
NONE = "Not One"
NONE = "No One"
N[ot]ONE OF THE CHILDREN ON THE BUS (a defined group) WERE HURT.
N[ot]ONE OF THE ALTERNATIVES (an undefined group) IS ACCEPTABLE.
N[o]ONE HERE TODAY (a defined group) ARE ABLE TO DEAL WITH THIS
N[o]ONE HAS APPEARED (an undefined group) WHO IS ABLE TO DEAL WITH THIS.
BUT...Was the Black Knight grammatically correct when he said, "None shall pass!"?
If there is a judge who actually decided a controversy on such a reading at some point in the past, I hope he's dead.
(Why is cheese sandwich better than perfect happiness? Because nothing is better than perfect happiness, and a cheese sandwich is better than nothing.)
I tend to use "is" or "are" depending on the sense. Do I mean "not one" or is my meaning closer to "not any." "None" can really stand for either. The former naturally takes "is," and the latter (often), "are."
For example, if I'm emphasizing that there's an existing class of persons or things, not a single one of which (considered one at a time) possesses a particular characteristic, then "is" works best.
We the readers of the Volokh Conspiracy can end this divisive debate once and for all by taking decisive action! We should create a new set of forms and inflections to denote zero number. Single, plural and none. We could one words, two words and no worden or worder or something. Then the verb to be would have new forms: he is, they are, none ams or none irs.
Yeah, I think that would work!
See F. Brentano and his difficulty with the golden mountain. See B. Russell's analgesic for Brentano's headache, The Theory of Descriptions.
Do people really perseverate on such issues? And is there any economic value to or increased productivity resulting from the countless man-hours involved in such perseveration?
Or is this all just a mindless philosophical exercise for the benefit of pure enjoyment?
Incredible.
Some people posted these phrases in comments:
Try: We are all imperfect.
All sausages are mold-free
All guests were unpoisoned.
All of the water is free of poison.
I think "unpoisoned" may be a made up word; it's also ugly. But I'm sure all people of good faith will agree it's worth enriching the English language with new, ugly words to avoid the plural/singular "none" controversy. Anyway, new words are useful in Scrabble, so that's a benefit.
Substitute:
"All are uncalled; all are unchosen."
And Mary Katherine Day-Petrano, frequent commenter, closes her comment with:
I will now demonstrate the proper use of "none" in a way that avoids the "singular/ plural" dilemma.
"How many people commenting on EV's grammar blog posts think there is any increased productivity resulting from the countless man-hours involved in such perseveration?" "None."
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.