I have noticed that the print media, usually the medium the “sets” the language, has decided that the pronoun “none” is a plural rather than a singular.  I usually read the NYT on the Internet and have written them to complain, but I have received no response.  If anyone can give me some feedback, I would appreciate it.  (By the way, I would like to thank this forum for including a spell check; I am a lousy speller).

AP Stylebook, the style guide followed by many news organizations (not sure about NYT in particular), allows for the use of “none” to indicate either singular or plural. It suggests when used as plural, it should be clear it is plural, but there seems to be a lot of leeway. At any rate, the inclusion of it in AP would suggest it is in common use in this form. My (really old) Strunk and White also allows for it to be singular or plural, so I don’t think this is a recent language change.

Elements of Style agrees that there are times, when the pronoun clearly refers to more than one person or thing, that the plural verb can be used, but the papers use the plural indiscriminately.  I have the Third Edition, printed in 1979.

okay, obvious. In English, singular/plural refers to the sense of the meaning, not the grammatical (as in latin) so ‘a number are’ , one in six are, etc. and if you insist on one in six is, you are speaking about six people. If meaning is plural, please use plural. just to make it easier.

billydal - 15 April 2008 02:57 PM

I have noticed that the print media, usually the medium the “sets” the language, has decided that the pronoun “none” is a plural rather than a singular.  I usually read the NYT on the Internet and have written them to complain, but I have received no response.  If anyone can give me some feedback, I would appreciate it.  (By the way, I would like to thank this forum for including a spell check; I am a lousy speller).

You might want to see what The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition has to say about ‘none’:

USAGE NOTE:    It is widely asserted that none is equivalent to no one, and hence requires a singular verb and singular pronoun: None of the prisoners was given his soup. It is true that none is etymologically derived from the Old English word n, “one,” but the word has been used as both a singular and a plural noun from Old English onward. The plural usage appears in the King James Bible as well as the works of John Dryden and Edmund Burke and is widespread in the works of respectable writers today. Of course, the singular usage is perfectly acceptable. The choice between a singular or plural verb depends on the desired effect. Both options are acceptable in this sentence: None of the conspirators has (or have) been brought to trial. When none is modified by almost, however, it is difficult to avoid treating the word as a plural: Almost none of the officials were (not was) interviewed by the committee. None can only be plural in its use in sentences such as None but his most loyal supporters believe (not believes) his story.

Compact Oxford Dictionary has the following view:

— USAGE Some traditionalists maintain that none can only take a singular verb (as in none of them is coming tonight rather than none of them are coming tonight). However, none is descended from Old English nan meaning ‘not one’, and has been used for around a thousand years with either a singular or a plural verb, depending on the context and the emphasis needed.