Mark B wrote:
Graculus wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7285085.stm

Except from the BBC news story:

quote
A tow-truck has overturned following an accident with a
double-decker bus under a railway bridge in south London.

The accident in Battersea Park Road [...] happened as the truck
tried to go under the bridge with its extended towing arm at about
1010 GMT. The arm caught the bottom of the bridge resulting in it
tilting on
to the oncoming number 345 bus, police said.

The bus, which was left leaning over, had 30 passengers onboard at
the time. None of the passengers were hurt.

No other injuries were reported.

[continues...]
/quote

Shocking story. Mainly because it should be, "None of the passengers
WAS hurt."
The standards of journalism today. Bah!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w-XQ6MVAsM

A lesson from Stephen Fry

.... trying to correct Alan Davies's correct English.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

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".

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

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.

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".

Sam

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, wrote:

On 8 Mar, 19:20, Mizter T wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7285085.stm

Initially it looked like a car had been crushed between the truck and
the bus but the truck in question was a TFL lift and remove truck for
parking on red routes etc. Would be a bit of a shock for the owner
when they went to claim it. Where is my car? Ahh there is a bit of a
problem sir - its been written off. M reg so not much to pay out!

This is the new TfL policy on red route offenders: they take your car
away, and then crush it with a bus.

tom

--
James Brown is dead.

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.

On 12 Mar, 10:17, MIG wrote:

(snip)

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.

Me thinks I'm a with the Devil on this here one.

On 12 Mar, 10:17, MIG wrote:

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 did mean verb of course.