If you were taught that the word
none is always singular, you were taught a
half-truth. Yes, none can be singular, but it can
be plural as well. Respected writers have been using the
word both ways for a very long time.
Those who once
argued that none must be singular claimed that it
meant “not a single one.” In fact, though, it quite
often means “not any.” Writers are more or less free to
decide which meaning is appropriate in their context.
Advice given by Richard Lederer and Richard Dowis is
typical: “Consider none as singular when you want
to emphasize a single entity in a group. Consider it
plural when you want to emphasize more than one” (98).
For Lederer and Dowis,
both of these sentences are acceptable:
None of us is going to the party.
None of us are going to the
party.
According to Wilson
Follett, insisting that none must always be
singular can lead to absurdity. Consider his example:
None of these authorities agrees with one
another. As Follett says, “Here none is
trying to be both singular and plural at the same time”
(227). Logic requires none to be plural:
None of these authorities agree with one
another.
There is one
situation in which none must be singular:
whenever it means “no amount” or “no part.” Wilson
Follett gives the following examples:
None of the debris has been cleared away.
None of our skepticism has been allayed by
such protestations. (228)
Patricia O’Conner
offers a practical test for deciding how to treat
none. If your meaning is “none of them,” treat
the word as plural; if it is “none of it,” treat it as
singular:
None of the fans are fighting. None [of them]
are excited enough.
None of the bout was seen in Pittsburgh. None
[of it] was worth broadcasting.
(28)
Conclusion: The idea
that none is always singular is a myth. Treat the
word as singular or plural depending on your intended
meaning.