View Full Version : How about the ridiculous "...none...was..."

30th Oct 2003, 09:09
As in,

"none of the passengers was injured" that some very confused journalists and others like to write.


30th Oct 2003, 09:13
"None" = "not one".

None was injured.

Not one was injured.

30th Oct 2003, 09:14
Please enlighten us... are you suggesting it is grammatically incorrect? If that is the case, you are wrong - none is a diminution of "not one"...

30th Oct 2003, 09:18
Will this be the briefest thread ever: 02:09 to 02:14?

Buster Hyman
30th Oct 2003, 09:51
Hmm, I always thought it was an abbreviation of no one. Either way, was is correct.

Perhaps, to keep the thread going, we could bring back the old chestnut colour or Z = zed ???


30th Oct 2003, 10:48
What if, instead of "injured", it was "doctors". Would you write "none of the passengers was doctors"?

"None" can stand for "not one", but, depending on context, isn't it fair to say that it can also stand for "not any".

By the way, did you notice that at the end of both paragraphs above, I put the punctuation *outside* the quote? :E

30th Oct 2003, 11:14
I believe that it would be correct to say " None [not one] of the passengers was injured." and, "None [not one] of the passengers was a doctor."



30th Oct 2003, 11:15
No. "None of the passengers was a doctor."

P.S. The "No" is for jrbt, not for 40.

Time Bomb Ted
30th Oct 2003, 11:54
A bit like a near miss really.

Isn't a near miss, a hit. If you nearly miss it you hit is surely?


Anthony Carn
30th Oct 2003, 13:57
You're reading it as ...."near miss". Fair enough.

Try reading it as .... "near" <but a> "miss".

:hmm: Jeez, I'll reply to anything, me !!! :(

30th Oct 2003, 14:25
From (a rather hazy) memory of the rules, is not "passengers" the word with which the number of the verb must agree? That is, should the verb not be ' were injured"? :confused:

tony draper
30th Oct 2003, 14:45
Nonanists,.....:rolleyes: ;)

30th Oct 2003, 15:38
Mr Cribble: same question; same answer.

P.S. "None" is a singular pronoun which should be followed by a singular verb: such is the rule of grammar and commonsense.

Grammar and commonsense are violated daily in this regard by the b*st*rd*s*t**n of the noble English language as captive of feminist thought, if we may dignify those processes with that noun.

Because the singular masculine personal pronon "he" as standing for "man" as in "mankind" is repugnant to the feminist "thinker", these "thinkers" have insisted on finding a substitute. They have lit on "they", which is plural in number, but common in form to the masculine and feminine genders, to use that word correctly for once.

This has received not only common (as Alas! even among many PPRuNers) but official (as, even more Alas! in Canadian statutory) form. The latest version of, for example, the Canada Business Corporations Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-44, as amended, contemplates at, for example, subsection 60(1) a singular subject "the purchaser" for whom the pronoun four lines later is the plural "their". It should be "he".

This is a permanent confession of shame on the parts of the Chief Legislative Draftsman (or Draftsperson) and the Parliament of Canada.

30th Oct 2003, 16:27
I don't want to be seen as the grammar police so I won't start a new thread; I'll just hijack this one. :uhoh:

Would all the people who write "should of", "would of", "had of" etc PLEASE inspect their handiwork and ask themselves how any of those combinations of words could actually mean anything?


tony draper
30th Oct 2003, 17:20
Thats how it starts, first slight abuse of Grammar, then, before you realise it, you know you are sacrificing virgins to the Dark One.


30th Oct 2003, 17:43
"none of the passengers was injured"

Is the crew OK?:)

30th Oct 2003, 19:36
Another often seen mistake (or heard) is the phrase, "The team are travelling ....." That should be, "The team is travelling ..." the plural would be correct only if there were several teams, e.g."The teams were travelling."

Fully paid up member of the spelling and grammar police.


30th Oct 2003, 20:05
Seems to be a "two countries separated by a common language" issue here. I noticed immediately, and have since come round to, the American way of addressing plural/singular items especially with respect to company names.

UK: "Time Warner have announced blah blah blah..."
US: "Time Warner has announced blah blah blah..."

The company is singular not plural and so "has" is correct, "have" is wrong.


five iron
30th Oct 2003, 23:49
But Ozzy,

When referring to Time Warner, you would say 'they', as opposed to 'it', 'he' or 'she'. So the plural is correct, is it not?:confused:

30th Oct 2003, 23:59
That's a negatory five iron, "Time Warner" is an 'it' not a 'they' as a it is a singular entity i.e. The company Time Warner has reported its earnings etc etc...


five iron
31st Oct 2003, 00:12
Thanks for the much needed clarity Oz Man:ok: