Active Now

Spunky
Art Lover
DannyPetti
my2cents
Discussion » Questions » Communication » Newscasters' grammar:
Randy D

Newscasters' grammar:



This is morning I heard a newscaster deliver the line, "None of the injuries is life-threatening."  I think it should have been, "None of the injuries are life-threatening."  Of the two, which do you think is correct?


1. "None of the injuries is life-threatening."

2. "None of the injuries are life-threatening."

~

Posted - February 26, 2017
Tags : None

Responses


  • 6124
    #2 = are

    Keep in mind newscasters read from teleprompters.  So, it's the writer's grammar that is lacking.
      February 26, 2017 10:57 AM MST
    2

  • 53484

    Which does not completely absolve the presenter from speaking correctly. You do have a good point, and you and I probably agree that many newscasters are paid million-dollar salaries to simply read whatever is placed in front of them.  The writers are not front and center, though. 

    My question merely seeks seeks opinions on which of the sentences is correct, not on with whom to find fault. 

    ~
      February 26, 2017 11:13 AM MST
    2

  • 6124
    Well, I did start with the answer and agreed with you at that!

    I thought you were irked with the newscaster.  While I agree the presenter should speak correctly, I do wonder if the majority of them have the capability of mentally sifting through the wording prior to spitting them out. 
      February 26, 2017 11:27 AM MST
    2

  • 53484


    Since they just read what's there, and don't read it prior to air time, they're really paid for the way they look and the commiserate connection to ratings for their affiliate/outlet.  There's no time on the producers' and program directors' stopwatches for Jack Squarejaw or Tammi Toothygrin to say, "Hey, wait a second, the syntax of that entire paragraph is wrong, let me rephrase it . . . "



    ~


      February 26, 2017 12:44 PM MST
    1

  • Originally, none was only singular. None is etymologically a combination of "not one". Replace none in that sentence with not one and see that only is works:

    Not one of the injuries is/*are life-threatening

    However, since as early as the Middle English period, none has been used with plural verbs when the sense is "no persons or things". E.g. "We looked for clues, but none were found". 

    English has an issue with number attraction, whereby a pronoun or noun that is singular is attracted into the plural because of a plural noun closer to the verb of the sentence. The word injuries is plural and it is right next to the verb, and since a sentence like "*his injuries is life-threatening" is ungrammatical, we tend to see any sentence that contains numerically discordant phrases like "injuries is life threatening" as being ungrammatical, even though, here, none can function perfectly well as a singular.  It's not wrong to use it in the plural, but some hard-line grammarians will say it can only ever be singular.

    This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at February 26, 2017 12:45 PM MST
      February 26, 2017 11:11 AM MST
    3

  • 53484
    Thank you. 

    A parent addresses his five children as he leaves to go to the store, "None of you are allowed to come with me."

    Should that be "is"?

    ~
      February 26, 2017 11:16 AM MST
    0

  • I'm not one to make should statements. It could be "is" and it wouldn't be wrong, that's what I'll say. But the plural is more common in modern English when you can replace "none" with "no persons" or "no things" and thus the plural would probably be more common here.  

      February 26, 2017 11:18 AM MST
    1

  • Why is the parent being a prick to his kids?
      February 26, 2017 7:23 PM MST
    1

  • 10052
    Hehehehe!
      February 26, 2017 8:48 PM MST
    0

  • 6124
    That was a very interesting & informative post Nevan.


      February 26, 2017 11:29 AM MST
    4

  • Thank you. :) These are the kind of questions I live for since I can finally put my linguistics degrees to good use :P
      February 26, 2017 11:30 AM MST
    5

  • Flippin heck! I am dead impressed!
      February 26, 2017 11:31 AM MST
    3

  • 10052
    That's tough. I think you're correct, because in this instance "none" seems to be plural. Both might be acceptable, though.

    I've recently been trying to explain "affect" and "effect" to my friend. I tried the "affect is almost never a noun" route; wasn't successful. Any other tips?

      February 26, 2017 11:13 AM MST
    3

  • Are.
    Injuries is a plural noun so you use the plural state-of-being  verb.
      February 26, 2017 11:13 AM MST
    2

  • Not quite. It's actually "none" that is the subject of the sentence (and thus agrees with the verb), not "injuries". Injuries is closer to the verb so it can "trick" us into affecting the number of the verb, but you have to see the sentence eliminating the prepositional phrase, i.e. "none...(is/are) life-threatening" and decide from there.
      February 26, 2017 11:16 AM MST
    2

  • This is why English grammar is nonsense and no one can follow it 100%.

    The statement as a whole is plural so is just doesn't fit.  English really needs to get it's act to together and make some real rules and cut out all this nonsense arbitrary if's and buts.

    None are life threatening.  None implies more than one.  I say are by logical deduction.  Yes I do! ;)
      February 26, 2017 11:21 AM MST
    1

  • 53484
    (get its act together)

    No apostrophe. 
      February 26, 2017 12:29 PM MST
    2

  • :D
      February 26, 2017 12:33 PM MST
    1

  • 53484
    Nevan, I think you've brought up some good points, ones that I had not considered originally.

    "Not one of the injuries is life-threatening." Makes sense.
    ~
      February 26, 2017 12:10 PM MST
    1

  • 34143
    Are....
      February 26, 2017 11:22 AM MST
    4

  • I vote for are..  The thing about English grammar is... that it's 2/3rd technical and 1/3 art or subjective...  Increasingly we see a loosening of some of the more restrictive rules. 

    I come from an era where they abandoned teaching grammar entirely. The reasoning was that what was really important to the language was expression and creativity. Personally, while I cringe at very bad grammar, I do love the idea of freedom within language - play around with it, have fun.  In fact lol that's my motto for life :P
      February 26, 2017 11:22 AM MST
    3

  • 53484

    They've stopped teaching grammar, penmanship, cursive, spelling, punctuation, composition, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

    :[


      February 26, 2017 12:23 PM MST
    1

  • Welllllllllllllll funny enough I *was* taught Italic writing, I love the art of writing.  Yes we weren't taught spelling or punctuation either.. lol works for me :P
      February 26, 2017 12:41 PM MST
    1

  • 19937
    You could have ended that sentence at, "They've stopped teaching."
      February 26, 2017 2:23 PM MST
    1