> In article
> b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>  MIG doreenbird.co.uk> wrote:

>> On Mar 10, 3:44 pm, Sam Wilson ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>>> In article
>>> d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,

>

>>>  MIG doreenbird.co.uk> wrote:

>>>> On 10 Mar, 12:06, Sam Wilson ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>>>>> In article
>>>>> <5dbc505e-5217-43e4-bea7-7908021a1...@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

>

>>>>>  Boltar yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>>>>> On Mar 8, 9:20 pm, "Graculus" hotmail.co.uk>
>>>>>> 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".