One of
the recurring themes of The Grammar Goat
blog is that many of the rules we were taught in English composition class
simply aren’t rules at all.
What
were presented to me and my classmates in Mrs. James 7th grade
English class as immutable laws of writing, not to be trifled with or bent out
of shape in any way, often are simply the opinions of influential writers long
dead and turned to dust.
But
before we dive into another example of that lamentable trend, let’s set the
record straight.
I have
been a little rough on the redoubtable Mrs. James, suggesting that her rigidity
about certain grammatical points were ill-considered and perhaps even detrimental
to budding writers who found themselves in her tightly ordered and squared-away
charge.
A most excellent teacher
I may
even have implied, wrongly, that she wasn’t much of a teacher. Nothing could be
farther from the truth. She was a most excellent teacher, dedicated and
enthusiastic, demanding and caring. And the lessons I learned from her are ones
I’ve carried with me – most of them anyway – for more than a half century.
To the
decree that I am any kind of writer at all can be credited to Mrs. James’ faithful
ministrations. Any failures are my own damned fault.
She
was, however, a product of her time. A time when ambiguity – in business,
politics and, yes, grammar – were frowned upon. She taught grammar as she had
learned it, and she believed, perhaps correctly, that firm, unyielding rules
strictly applied were the best way to impose discipline and understanding to
unformed, unruly minds.
I love
English teachers. My daughter, Rachel, is one, a scary bright educator full of
ideas, enthusiasm and compassion for her students. She and her fellow English
teachers, past and present, do the Lord’s work by attempting to bring order and
insight to the mush inside their students’ skulls, to make civilized creatures out
of them with lessons about the tragedies and the glories of the human
condition.
She doesn’t
always agree with the positions I’ve taken on grammatical issues. Recently, we
had a spirited conversation about semi-colons. She likes them, while I think
they are instruments of Satan. (I could have used a semi-colon instead of the
clunky “while” in the previous sentence. But in this sad old world, you must
pick your poisons. Death before semi-colons!)
A staunch defense
Look
for a future Grammar Goat post in
which the remarkable Ms. Gunnels mounts a staunch defense of the loathsome
semi-colon. I’ve warned her I intend to destroy her arguments without mercy.
Now to the grammatical business at hand. The
question before us: Is the indefinite pronoun none singular or plural?
“Both
are acceptable beyond serious criticism,” Merriam-Webster’s
Dictionary of English Usage states firmly.
So why
have several generations of English teachers – including Mrs. James – insisted
that none is a singular pronoun and
thus takes a singular verb?
Their
reasoning goes like this. None is a
contraction of no one, and there can
be nothing on God’s green earth more singular than one, can there? So none
must take a singular verb.
Nothing
wrong with that logic. Except nothing about grammar is ever quite so simple.
Merriam-Webster agrees that none is generally thought to be a contraction of no one. But it considers that a gross
oversimplification.
None, in fact, comes from the Old
English work nan, it reports. And nan was formed from ne (not) and an (one).
“But Old English nan was inflected for both singular and plural,” says Merriam-Webster, dropping the bomb. “Hence
it never has existed in the singular only; King Alfred the Great used it as a
plural as long ago as A.D. 888.”
More than acceptable
The
Handbook of Good English says none
can indeed mean no one or not one. But it can “also mean not any and be treated as a plural, as
in None of the trees in the forest are
deciduous.”
In
fact, use of the plural with none is
more than just acceptable.
“The plural verb is now more common,” affirms Harper Dictionary of Contemporary Usage.
“So, if you use a plural verb after none
(‘None of the people are happy with the results’), you’re traveling in
excellent company.”
Merriam-Webster says since none has been both singular and plural since Old English, either
may be used without guilt. It all depends on the meaning you’re trying to
convey.
“The notion that it is singular only is a myth
of unknown origin that appears to have arisen late in the 19th century,”
it says.
Even
the venerable, and widely beloved, Elements
of Style by William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White has vacillated on the
subject.
In the
1959 edition, the authors state definitely that none is always singular. However, the 1972 second edition allows
the use of a plural verb when none suggests
more than one person or thing.
Rueful acknowledgment?
In
that edition, and in the tattered 1979 edition that sits on my bookshelf, White
illustrates the rule, without comment, by this example:
None are so fallible as those who
are sure they’re right.
A
rueful acknowledgment of error? You be the judge.
Theodore
Bernstein theorizes in The Careful Writer
that English teachers like my Mrs. James and his Miss Thistlebottom, a
fictional proponent of rigid grammar orthodoxy, made a conscious decision to
spare their students the literary debate of singular versus plural.
“Confronted
with a collection of little monsters of varying degrees of understanding and
judgment, she found it simpler to lay down a flat rule,” Bernstein says.
Likewise,
newspapers, confronted with newsrooms filled with reporters and editors of
varying skill levels, also embraced the singular none. He strongly suspects their decision was influenced by the
desire to avoid angry letters from doctrinaire grammar teachers and their
students.
“If a
rule is needed,” advises Bernstein, a former top editor of the New York Times, “a better one is to
consider none to be plural unless
there is a definite reason to regard it as a singular.”
He
offers two reasons why the singular would be preferred.
n
A
construction in which none is
followed by a singular noun.
For example:
None of the editor’s
advice was heeded before the story was published.
None of the phone
call was recorded when the kidnapper called the missing child’s parents.
However:
None of the warnings
were heeded before the story was published.
None of the contents
of the phone call were recorded when the kidnapper called…
n
To
emphasize a singular idea.
For example:
Twelve Marines
attacked the bunker, but none was injured.
Four ships were
struck by torpedoes during the attack, but none was sunk.
“But even in such an instance it would be
better to achieve the emphasis by changing the none to not one or no one,” Bernstein says.
No question, these are stronger
sentences:
Twelve Marines
attacked the bunker, but no one was injured.
Four ships were
struck by torpedoes during the attack, but not one was sunk.
‘Underlying fallacy’
“The
underlying fallacy in Miss Thistlebottom’s reasoning is that since none is derived from not one, she thinks it always means
that. But it doesn’t. Sometimes it means no
amount and most often it means not
any,” Bernstein says.
In the end, the question of whether to make none a singular or plural idea rests
largely with the writer. It’s not often that a grammatical rule surrenders so
readily to the writer’s whim. If you wish to convey the idea that none means a singular no one, use a singular verb. If the
meaning you’re trying to put across is that not
any of a variety of people or things are involved, go plural.
In the
hands of a sure writer, the meaning shines through, and the reader is rewarded
with comprehension and perhaps even inspiration.
And
that’s something Mrs. James would surely appreciate.
