Welcome to Writers Talkback. If you are a new user, your account will have to be approved manually to prevent spam. Please bear with us in the meantime
"is" or "are" for "none"?
Should I use "is" or "are" following the word "none" when referring to a number of objects? Here are the example sentences:
"A handful of Tridents remain on display, though none are airworthy."
"A handful of Tridents remain on display, though none is airworthy."
Comments
Whether that is technically correct, I have no idea- you need Red...
In some sentences, "are" simply reads and sounds better. I would say that this is not one of them (although there isn't a hard and fast rule, because Carol disagrees with me).
Just read your context - more than one of the Tridents COULD be airworthy, and there are more than one Trident, so I'd go for the 'are'.
but
usage has changed and in some situations 'are' sounds more correct, even though it isn't.
However, what I can't get my Friday evening head round is what the difference is between 'not one' and 'not any'.
If we are talking about uncountable things - water, sand - then it is always 'is' (none of the water is drinkable).
But if we are talking about countable things - people, aircraft - what is the difference? My head feels funny now and I need another mince pie.
It sounds odd to say 'None of us is coming', but that is grammatically correct.
None is singular.
[quote=heather]If we are talking about uncountable things - water, sand - then it is always 'is' (none of the water is drinkable).[/quote]
Yes, these are all singular, so you would use 'is'.
[quote=heather]But if we are talking about countable things - people, aircraft[/quote]
People is plural, therefore use 'are'.
Aircraft, depending on context can be singular or plural, so would use 'is' or 'are' accordingly.
That aircraft is damaged. We can't use it.
All the aircraft are damaged. We can't use them.
I stand corrected - or, in this case, sit!
This just goes to show that the English language can be really confusing sometimes.
Not any is short for 'not any of THEM', and therefore could be a plural - ie two or more of them of 'them' might have been, whatever.
Then it is War of the Dictionaries!
Oxford Dictionary: 'Not any (one) of'
I shall not be moved!
It's something that was brought to my attention through my study of English, and something I was determined to remember and stick to whilst others failed at the first fence.
Maybe, since then, usage has become extended to include the plural as shown by Chambers, but you will never hear me utter or write 'None of them are . . .'
Blame the OCD.
P.S. I would say it is short for 'not any ONE of them'.
(smiley face kept under wraps on Liz's behalf)
*exits,shamefaced.*
'None' is descended from OE 'nan' 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 go with what feels right to you given the context.
:)
Edited to add the smiley - sorry but I like 'em!
I'm with Claudia in having a spinning head!
Peter O'Toole, Lawrence of Arabia. A memorable line, memorably spoken.
but now I'll go back and read the thread.
Mind you, Laurence of Arabia operated nearly 100 years ago, so maybe that's an archaism.
... use a singular verb where possible but if the notion of plurality is present a plural verb has been optional since the OE (Old English) period and in some circumstances is desirable.
... run that by me again?
They all agreed on
'None . . . is'.
If two out of three Tridents could still fly, you'd say two were airworthy and one isn't.
If it was only one, you'd say one is airworthy and two aren't.
With none of them being fit to fly, surely it's "none are"? - i.e. three of them aren't airworthy.
The singular makes sense in a construction like this:
There are four petrol stations in the neighbourhood, although none of them offers a significant saving over the others.
i.e. when you're describing a situation where one item in a given collection could be different to the others, but isn't.
Why is that different from:-
DeneBebbo wrote: "A handful of Tridents remain on display, though none is airworthy."
This query may result in a bald head. Rather the variety of opinions' offered in answer. I've been scratching my head, pondering the dilemma, for the fourteen days since DeneBebbo posed the conundrum.
Referring to "The New International Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language", seeking an alternative view, only increases my confusion. In offering "none" to mean; not one, no one, no, not any. The definition concludes the word to be "Archaic ..... generally before a vowel; none other gods before me."
Considering all thirty four preceding observations, [quote=Carol]It might be easier to change the way you write it.[/quote] appears a most practical solution.
May I begin this alternative approach with the following suggestion.
"The handful of Tridents on display are not airworthy."
All opinions will be appreciated.
Isn't Webster's an American dictionary? I wouldn't consider "none" to be archaic in British English.
'Like Webster's Dictionary, we're Morocco bound' - Bob Hope and Bing Crosby in The Road to Morocco.
Exactly, therefore providing means to step away and view interpretation from a different perspective. Talkback is, afterall, an International congregation of English writers'. Not that the idea assisted resolution in this instance.
[quote=Mrs Bear]archaic uses of many words[/quote]
Archaic wins favour from me. I'm 'guilty' of enjoying use of words in their full spelling with preference for many that gain little attention in current usage.
Include me in on that.
My interpretation of that sentence is that that definition of the word is archaic, rather than the word itself.
And I shall now go off to bed thinking about it! (Hope that doesn't make me too sad.)
"A handful of Tridents remain on display, though none are airworthy."
"A handful of Tridents remain on display, though none is airworthy." [/quote]
As lots of people have already pointed out, they are both correct. 'None' is both singular and plural (hence much confusion, because many of us will have been taught that the subject of a sentence requires a singular verb, but the plurality of 'none' could mean 'not any'). It sometimes boils down to HOW the sentence can be read, interpreted and understood.
[quote=Lah-tay]In both cases, "remain" should be "remains", as the subject of the sentence, "handful", is singular. [/quote]
That depends on singularity or plurality, and placement of subject and verb:
'A handful of tridents remain on display, though none ARE airworthy'
'A handful of Tridents remains on display, though none IS airworthy'
Clear as mud.
I see that now. My brain hasn't been working well recently :-(
I really need to read a book on grammar because I thought the subject of the sentence was the Tridents.
I've always been interested in words, but I have to say that grammar just gives me a headache! In my simple understanding of English I thought that because Tridents is plural then "none are" is correct. Presumably "none are" would be correct if I'd written the following sentence:
A few Tridents remain on display, though none are airworthy.
I'd be tempted to by-pass the question altogether before it drove me nuts, and say, 'Of the few remaining Tridents, not a single one was found to be airworthy.'
The article has already been published, and I asked the question because the editor changed "are" to "is" and I wasn't sure who was right - though the odds were on the editor! This thread is useful in helping me to understand the subtlety of grammar.
[quote=DeneBebbo]This thread is useful in helping me to understand the subtlety of grammar.[/quote]
Agree with that - it's fascinating stuff.
If you change your first clause to "A few of the tridents", then using "remain" would be correct, yes, because you're referring explicitly to the plural rather than a singular collection.
As for the "none is" vs. "none are" debate, I used to believe that "none is" would be the correct syntax either way (none = not one). And that was thanks to Oxford's own book on English usage. But these days the good old Oxford boffs have realised that none is derived from an Old English word which takes either "is" or "are" depending on your own preference. Apparently there never was, going back to the original Old English, any precedent set for using one or the other because singular and plural versions were written way back then in any context.
And English changes anyway, even if we try to cling to it in its contemporary form. To be honest, there are ways I don't want it to change; but I can't ignore the fact that it has already - a lot. In fact it's changed so much that some letters have disappeared. Ever heard of "eth", "thorn" or "wynn"? These were letters of the English alphabet many moons ago!