<p>None is another goofy one. I was taught that it was singular and to think of it as a contraction of not one or no one. However, I was just reading (I know I need to get a LIFE) a grammar book that quoted Merriam Webster’s style guide. It said that none has been both plural and singular since Old English. However, it also noted that the SAT’s view it as singular.</p>
<p>Really!? Well, I didn’t know that. None always meant “not one” to to me. I’m not sure that my ears can get used to the plural use.</p>
<p>I think that’s another one where you have to use your ear (and where ears will differ). I would say, “None of those choices appeals to me,” but, “None of the Red Sox hitters are hot at the moment.” It depends on whether your meaning is closer to “not one of them is [predicate],” or “all of them are [not predicate].”</p>
<p>nightchef, I believe the correct version of your sentence would be: “None of the Red Sox players are healthy at the moment.” ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is untrue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would use the plural in both cases. The semantic implication of none is such that the plurality or singularlity of the object of the prepositional phrase should logically determine the agreement, unlike with the pronoun each, for example.</p>
<p>It is true, silverturtle, that the book I was referring to (Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, tenth edition) said that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t doubt that. My point was that your source is mistaken.</p>
<p>Lafalum84–LOL. So true.</p>
<p>The AP newswire had a story today that the pilot of a boat that rammed a tourist duck boat in Philadelphia “evoked his 5th Amendment rights”. I hope he was a little more substantial than that in preserving his rights.</p>