Janice:
Yes, we are all taught that none should be singular. Fowler (the 1965 version) disagrees: "It is a mistake to suppose that the pronoun (none)is singular only and must at all costs be followed by singular verbs etc.; the OED explicitly states that plural construction is commoner." Despite Fowler, to me it will always be singular, but when I state this, some pedant(!) always reminds me of Sir John Harrington's quote, used to show none used as a plural:
Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
Now I had always thought that dare was a subjunctive and therefore proper with the singular none. Now that I study the sentence, however, it seems to me that the subordinate clause (protasis) is properly subjunctive (...if it prosper), and the main clause (apodosis)is indicative, and thus none is truly used in a plural sense here. At least that is the way I put it together.
We could spend all day talking about the subjunctive and conditionals, including one of my pet peeves, seen by me only in the last 25 years: The incorrect expression: "If I would have gone to work today..." instead of "If I had gone to work today, I would have seen you." Younger people, for some reason, put the conditional use into the first clause rather than the subjunctive. I won't get into that right now. Maybe later.
Jack |
