none, singular vs plural - 09/24/05 03:56 PM
Another thread forced me to quit the computer screen and walk into the library to consult what others have said about plural none.
First, in 1926, H. W. Fowler, whom none call a descriptivist, had this to say: "none. 1. It is a mistake to suppose that the pronoun is sing. only & must at all costs be followed by sing. verbs, &c.; the OED explicitly states that the pl. construction is commoner. 2. The forms none so, none too are idiomatic (It is none so pleasant to learn that you have only six months to live; The look he gave me was none too amiable), but are perhaps seldom used without a certain sense of condescending to the vernacular as an aid to heartiness of manner or emphasis; & condescension is always repellent." Damned well said, Hank. Who'd've thought we would've agreed.
The entry on none in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage says inter alia: "The origin of the notion [that none is singular] is simple enough to discover—the etymology of the word. Lounsbury 1908 supposed that "some student of speech" thought it to be a contraction of no one. Actually the etymology explanation is at least as old as Lindley Murray 1795. Murray, after recording that "None is used in both numbers" goes on to observe, "It seems originally to have signified according to its derivation, not one, and therefore to have had no plural ..." Murray is, in fact, only half right here. The Old English nan "none" was in fact formed from ne "not" and an "one," but Old English nan was inflected for both singular and plural. Hence it never existed in the singular only; King Alfred the Great used it as a plural as long ago as A.D. 888."
The OED citation mentioned is: "þæt þær nane oðre an ne sæton buton þa weorþestan."
Strunk & White 1959 says that none "takes the singular verb." But the 1979 edition allows for a plural verb when none suggest "more than one thing or person."
This is but one example of how prescriptivists not only sometimes get things wrong but actually do damage to that which they wish to conserve by removing that which is fit.
First, in 1926, H. W. Fowler, whom none call a descriptivist, had this to say: "none. 1. It is a mistake to suppose that the pronoun is sing. only & must at all costs be followed by sing. verbs, &c.; the OED explicitly states that the pl. construction is commoner. 2. The forms none so, none too are idiomatic (It is none so pleasant to learn that you have only six months to live; The look he gave me was none too amiable), but are perhaps seldom used without a certain sense of condescending to the vernacular as an aid to heartiness of manner or emphasis; & condescension is always repellent." Damned well said, Hank. Who'd've thought we would've agreed.
The entry on none in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage says inter alia: "The origin of the notion [that none is singular] is simple enough to discover—the etymology of the word. Lounsbury 1908 supposed that "some student of speech" thought it to be a contraction of no one. Actually the etymology explanation is at least as old as Lindley Murray 1795. Murray, after recording that "None is used in both numbers" goes on to observe, "It seems originally to have signified according to its derivation, not one, and therefore to have had no plural ..." Murray is, in fact, only half right here. The Old English nan "none" was in fact formed from ne "not" and an "one," but Old English nan was inflected for both singular and plural. Hence it never existed in the singular only; King Alfred the Great used it as a plural as long ago as A.D. 888."
The OED citation mentioned is: "þæt þær nane oðre an ne sæton buton þa weorþestan."
Strunk & White 1959 says that none "takes the singular verb." But the 1979 edition allows for a plural verb when none suggest "more than one thing or person."
This is but one example of how prescriptivists not only sometimes get things wrong but actually do damage to that which they wish to conserve by removing that which is fit.