On 11 Mar, 12:36, Sam Wilson wrote:
In article
,





*MIG wrote:
On Mar 10, 3:44*pm, Sam Wilson wrote:
In article
,

*MIG wrote:
On 10 Mar, 12:06, Sam Wilson wrote:
In article
,

*Boltar wrote:
On Mar 8, 9:20 pm, "Graculus"
wrote:
Mainly because it should be, "None of the passengers WAS
hurt."

Since when? "were" is the plural form, passengers is plural.

Because none is (arguably) singular.

Consider oranges ...

If you said "several oranges", "three oranges", "fifty oranges" or a
"couple of oranges", you'd be referring to the individual oranges, so
you'd use "were" afterwards.

If you said "a box of oranges", most likely it's the box you are
referring to, so you'd say "was" (ie picking up a box is not the same
as picking up many individual oranges).

In the "none" case, it's not really a strictly grammatical issue; it's
whether you are considering the individual passengers or a unit
container of passengers. *Is the meaning on the lines of "a none of
passengers ..."?

I doubt it, so I think that the plural is fine. *There is no word
"nany", so "none" has to stand for "not one" and "not any".

And if it stands for "not one" then it's singular. *I'm not being
dogmatic, just pointing out that, arguably, "none" is singular. *You can
also argue that it's plural.

Sam

It's not that simple though. *"A couple" is also singular, and if you
were talking about a married couple you'd probably say "a couple
was ...".

But you wouldn't say "a couple of people was ..." because in that
sense, despite being a singular noun phrase, it's actually standing in
for "about two".

So? *We seem to be in violent agreement that some words can seem to be
singular sometimes and plural at others.

How dare you accuse me of violence? Why I oughta bash you up good.

My point was that "a couple" is singular and nothing but singular, and
yet no one, even a strict grammarian, would put a singular noun after
"a couple of people ..."


I know that grammar is about how words fit together rather than about
how the world is, but the two sometimes do interract.

Hey, relax! *(Is that guaranteed to wind you up or what?) I'm not saying
there's no ambiguity or room for interpretation. *Actually I'm saying
there *is* ambiguity and room for interpretation. *Some people argue
that "none" is singular; others treat it as plural. *You're saying the
same goes for "couple" and I say "so it does; 'number' is the same".

My natural inclination is to be very strict on the "grammar is about
words" interpretation, like Stephen Fry.

But I started off Devil's advocate and then realised that the Devil
had a pretty good point.