Is “none” singular or plural?
Kidist Paulos Asrat wrote:
I made a silly grammatical error in my email response to you [in “Thoughts on Geller’s and Spencer’s new organization”]. My last sentence reads:
“None of these organizations (IFPS, Act) talk about PRESERVING Western civilization.”
Talk, clearly should be in the singular—talks.
Thanks.
LA replied:
I’ve fixed it.
I still remember the moment (well into adulthood) when I read in a usage book that “none” should (generally) be singular. It was as a lens that had been out of focus was turned and suddenly came into focus. All my life I had said, “None … are.” Now I began saying “None … is,” and it clicked, which it hadn’t done before.
However, while none is a contra
Dale F. writes:
Regarding “none”: I have quite a collection of usage guides and dictionaries, and the consensus (though I won’t call the topic “settled”) seems to be that singular and plural usages are equally common, and that the chosen sense is usually up to the ear of the writer rather than to rules of grammar. According to my 1989 Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage—which has a particularly long article on the topic—both singular and plural usages are well attested going back to the word’s origins in Old English. The author of the article believes that the notion that “none” is always or dominantly (ha!) singular seems to have arisen among pettifogging grammarians in the late nineteenth century.
Bryan Garner in his Dictionary of Modern American Usage notes that “none is” is more emphatic, but can seem stilted in the wrong context. To my ear, “None of these organizations are serious about immigration” sounds natural; the singular alternative, though grammatically allowable, does not. Similarly, “None of these issues are addressed in the FDI manifesto” sounds right to me, but “Of all the issues left unaddressed by the FDI manifesto, none is more glaringly absent than the question of immigration” is emphatically correct.
So fear not—none but the brave write well!
LA replies:
The authorities you are following leave it up to the ear of the speaker, with no rules; and they define correctness as a function of popularity. I disagree on both counts. The best thing on this I’ve seen, perhaps it was in my copy of Theodore Bernstein’s excellent usage guide, The Careful Writer, put it this way. If the intended sense of “none” is “not one,” then it should be treated as singular. If the intended sense of “none” is “not any,” then it should be treated as plural.
Now there are cases where either sense, “not one,” or “not any,” would be correct, and so it is up to the speaker/writer to decide which is better. To me,
“None (not one) of these organizations is serious about immigration,”
is stronger, more precise, and more emphatic than
“None (not any) of these organizations are serious about immigration.”
LA continues:
I wrote:
“The authorities you are following leave it up to the ear of the speaker, with no rules; and they define correctness as a function of popularity.”
Meaning, they are authorities who deny the existence of authority. Meaning, they are liberals.
Dan M. writes:
On the matter of the correct usage of “none,” as you correctly pointed out, “none” is a word of convenience, standing in for “not one,” which is understood. English contains a great many usages with “understood” elements elided, and so for a stronger clearer effect (as opposed to an effect of convenience) it’s often best simply to rephrase, rather than quibble over usage.
For instance, “none” works just fine in a weak phrase of convenience like “none of the above” where we all know what is meant and we just wish to get on with it. Whereas in making an emphatic point, as in the example “None are serious about immigration,” a stronger clearer approach might simply be to avoid the usage issue entirely and say instead, “Not a single one of which is serious about immigration.”
There’s also in certain contexts a slight but discernible shade of difference in meaning between “none” and “not one.” As you can see, I rather enjoy and admire the English language.
LA replies:
“None” does mean “not one,” and so “none” should in most cases be treated grammatically the same as “not one,” that is, as singular. But, as I believe Bernstein points out, there are instances in which the intended meaning is “not any” rather than “not one,” and in those cases the plural may be better.
However, I don’t know about using “not one” simply as a replacement for “none.” They are different expressions, to be used in different situations.
Dale F. replies to LA:
Liberals? Heaven forfend! Well, Merriam-Webster maybe, but certainly not Bryan Garner.
Garner in fact makes the same distinction between “not one” and “not any” that you allude to. I agree that there are cases where the singular or plural usage is clearly, grammatically dictated.
In many other cases—e.g. “None of these organizations are serious about immigration”—the word “none” could equally sensibly be replaced by “not one” or “not any.” In such cases, it’s the writer’s choice; there’s no rule dictating the interpretation.
So though I agree that there are instances where the choice between singular or plural is unambiguous, there are others that are a matter of taste. All I object to is the dogmatic assertion of a rule from which at times one would be forced to make an unprincipled exception.
Dan M. writes:
You wrote:
I don’t know about using “not one” simply as a replacement for “none”.
Ah, but that is not what I’m saying.
They are different expressions, to be used in different situations.
Ah, now that is what I’m saying. Situations requiring mere convenience are different from situations requiring emphasis, clarity, or strength of exposition. There’s often numerous ways to say a thing, none of which is strictly wrong (hey, see what I did there?); but some function a bit better than others. Both Ariel and Caliban do the bidding of Prospero, but we know which character we like better.
Hannon writes:
Lawrence, I really laughed when I read,
Meaning, they are authorities who deny the existence of authority. Meaning, they are liberals.
I think it must take a genetic predisposition, or a long period of inculcation, to see this sort of thing. Maybe both. It reminded me of a recent contention I had with a colleague regarding the use of technical terms. I think you would appreciate the essence of this. Basically, he had argued that there was a continuum of a particular organic form or morphology. His wording implied that it is useless trying to parse out any particular identifiable point, or form, along this line in order to apply a label that gives a more precise meaning to the reader.
At some point biologists recognize that there is a suite of fundamental differences between the wing of a bird and the wing of a dragonfly. To argue that “a wing is a wing is a wing” becomes untenable, even false, at some point. The refusal to recognize such points in other cases that may be more subtle seems a prime example of modern liberalism.
Relativism is alive and well in the natural sciences. It is not unreasonable, I think, to draw inferences as to the politics of the people who promote such views.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 19, 2010 11:42 AM | Send