A quick query. My mum wasn't taught the rules of grammar in her school and has picked it up by ear as a result - yet she has brought up a rather interesting point. The English language has features of Germanic languages in it, which generally combine words one after the other to create long words with new meanings: 'Nonetheless', 'However'. However, the actual definition of 'none' is 'Not one'. Does that mean that one should use 'None was' or 'None were' in a sentence? For example: 'Not one was distinct enough to recognise.' 'None was distinct enough to recognise.' 'Not one were distinct enough to recognise.' 'None were distinct enough to recognise.' Is this just the English language slowly morphing - or is it that this rule of grammar is not taught in English anymore? Thoughts and opinions appreciated.
Hi, I believe the above three are correct, depending on circumstances. (None was... might be correct—others I’m sure will post—but it sounds off to me). Was is singular, so ‘Not one was distinct...’ would be correct. Were is plural and can be used for subjunctive mood (was is for statements of fact, were is for unreal or hypothetical statements). ‘None were distinct...’ is saying there is more than one that could be distinct enough to recognise. ‘Not one were...’ could be subjunctive mood, but I doubt it is correct for your example. There are many more on this site with a greater knowledge of grammar than me. So I await further replies with interest! Dave Edited to add: I may have completely missed what you were asking!
That's the definition, but that doesn't mean that it's used as if it's grammatically identical to the phrasing of the definition--it's not like it's a contraction. 'Can't' is used exactly like "can not". 'Don't' is used exactly like 'do not'. But I don't believe that 'none' is used exactly like 'not one'. I'm pretty confident that it would be 'none were', but in any case, I'm confident that you don't use a rule of treating 'none' as if it's identical to 'not one'. Edited to add: Actually, the dictionary definition that I find first for 'none' is 'not any'. 'Not one' is mentioned as a synonym, not a definition. And that makes me consider that it's not only used for counted things, it's also used for volumes and other measurements. "Now much flour do we have left?" "None."
Thank you for your helpful replies. After looking at Cambridge Dictionary, I found that None has two possible forms: Not One, and Not Any. This seems to agree with what you've said above, regarding None being a quantitative term. The Cambridge site does, though, suggest that it can be used both for counted- and uncounted things - as clear as mud! Take a look, if you have a moment: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/quantifiers/no-none-and-none-of
"No one" is definitely singular. It's almost the definition of singular and always stays that way. You're right that "no one == none." And none is singular or plural, mostly depending on the surrounding text. Kind of funny that way. (Any typos are mine. I have the hardcover, not an epub. . .) Chicago Manual (Section 5.250) none: this word may take either a singular or a plural verb. A guideline: if it is followed by a singular noun, treat it as a singular {none of the building was painted}; if by a plural noun, treat it as a plural {none of the guests were here when I arrived}. But for special emphasis, it is quite proper (though possibly stilted) to use a singular verb when a plural noun follows (none of my suggestions was accepted}.
