From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Harkins Subject: Re: org-grep, and problems Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:50:55 +0800 Message-ID: References: <864n8pw2eg.fsf@iro.umontreal.ca> <228E2892-5CCF-4310-A503-31907B7B8504@gmail.com> Reply-To: jamshark70@dewdrop-world.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e012953ac81a01704e8c05430 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37792) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VVwaw-0001rG-89 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 00:50:59 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VVwav-0005B2-5E for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 00:50:58 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-x234.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c01::234]:52791) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VVwau-0005Au-Vo for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 00:50:57 -0400 Received: by mail-ob0-f180.google.com with SMTP id wn1so5495737obc.39 for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 21:50:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Jonathan Leech-Pepin Cc: Org Mode Mailing List --089e012953ac81a01704e8c05430 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Oct 15, 2013 2:19 AM, "Jonathan Leech-Pepin" < jonathan.leechpepin@gmail.com> wrote:. > > I'm voting for "none of the bosses is going to attend." > > None is a bit of an odd case, since it reflects the plurality of the associated noun. I don't want to drag it out much further as it's well off topic, but... I did some checking and found (for the most part) that what I said *used* to be true, but that the usage has been shifting for a good century or two (to allow "none" to be plural). So I concede that point (and learned something today, which I like). >From the few grammar sites I checked, it seems that a plural "none" is definitely accepted in speech and informal writing. One site mentioned that formal writing may more often call for none to take a singular verb, regardless of the associated noun. But Facebook, twitter and texting have basically killed formal writing already, so, soon even that caveat will be gone. I did not find any sites claiming that it's mandatory to give "none" a plural verb if it appears with a plural noun. All of those sites at least gave lip service to its origin as "not one of" -- e.g. "not one of the groups is going" -- so my preference for the singular verb is justified, though not my claim that the other is flat-out incorrect. Thanks... Glad to learn I can cross that one off my grammar police list. hjh --089e012953ac81a01704e8c05430 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Oct 15, 2013 2:19 AM, "Jonathan Leech-Pepin" <jonathan.leechpepin@gmail.com>= ; wrote:.
> > I'm voting for "none of the bosses is going to attend.&q= uot;
>
> None is a bit of an odd case, since it reflects the plurality of the a= ssociated noun.

I don't want to drag it out much further as it's well off topic,= but... I did some checking and found (for the most part) that what I said = *used* to be true, but that the usage has been shifting for a good century = or two (to allow "none" to be plural). So I concede that point (a= nd learned something today, which I like).

From the few grammar sites I checked, it seems that a plural "none&= quot; is definitely accepted in speech and informal writing. One site menti= oned that formal writing may more often call for none to take a singular ve= rb, regardless of the associated noun. But Facebook, twitter and texting ha= ve basically killed formal writing already, so, soon even that caveat will = be gone.

I did not find any sites claiming that it's mandatory to give "= none" a plural verb if it appears with a plural noun. All of those sit= es at least gave lip service to its origin as "not one of" -- e.g= . "not one of the groups is going" -- so my preference for the si= ngular verb is justified, though not my claim that the other is flat-out in= correct.

Thanks... Glad to learn I can cross that one off my grammar police list.=

hjh

--089e012953ac81a01704e8c05430--