Will You Be Shopping At Boots This...
News0 min ago
Who, me?
19 Answers
Any grammarians out there? Yes,well tackle this.
Which of these is grammatically correct and why?
" There are three people listed, none
a) of whom is me '
b) of whom are me
c) of whom is I
d) of whom are I
e) of which is I
f) of which are me "
There may be yet another, which is 'ultra correct' !
In casual speech I'd probably say "of whom are me" because, strangely, that sounds right in speech, but it doesn't seem to bear any grammatical analysis as' none' must be referring to one individual, one person who might have been the speaker, and one person cannot take 'are', the plural.
Which of these is grammatically correct and why?
" There are three people listed, none
a) of whom is me '
b) of whom are me
c) of whom is I
d) of whom are I
e) of which is I
f) of which are me "
There may be yet another, which is 'ultra correct' !
In casual speech I'd probably say "of whom are me" because, strangely, that sounds right in speech, but it doesn't seem to bear any grammatical analysis as' none' must be referring to one individual, one person who might have been the speaker, and one person cannot take 'are', the plural.
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fredpuli47. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I guess it should realy be 'none of whom is me'.
Technically, 'none' is 'no one' and should be singular (though saying 0 = 1 might raise the eyebrows of mathematicians and computer programmers).
'Whom' rather than 'which' for people in my opinion though some do say 'which'.
'Me' because that's almost always the usage after a verb: 'It's me'. Again, technically it should really be 'It is I' and some people do say that, but it sounds really, really pedantic.
You could slightly fudge the issue by saying 'There are three people listed, none of them me' - or totally, by saying 'There are three people listed and I'm not one of them.'
Technically, 'none' is 'no one' and should be singular (though saying 0 = 1 might raise the eyebrows of mathematicians and computer programmers).
'Whom' rather than 'which' for people in my opinion though some do say 'which'.
'Me' because that's almost always the usage after a verb: 'It's me'. Again, technically it should really be 'It is I' and some people do say that, but it sounds really, really pedantic.
You could slightly fudge the issue by saying 'There are three people listed, none of them me' - or totally, by saying 'There are three people listed and I'm not one of them.'
I'd day "none of whom is me" (particularly when writing) - on the assumption, as jno says, that "none" is singular. However I understand fredpuli's view that you are referring to "X and Y and Z" (who are plural) and saying "none of them are me" and that sounds right when spoken. It's certainly not I at the end! JNo I am uncertain re whom or which sometimes, but it's certainly not the dreaded "that" which seems to have crept in to so many documents every time "which" or "whom" should correctly be used. You could also say "That's not me" and that would be correct! Oh, the joys of the English language !
It's really very simple. None is a contraction of "not one".
So "none of whom are" is ALWAYS incorrect. How could it ever possibly be correct? Could you ever say "not one are here"? No of course you couldn't!
And, in this instance, the subject of the sentence is the "one", not the people. So, the verb must be singular.
And, just for the record, the noun "people" isn't plural - it's a singular noun being used to represent a single entity made up of more than one part. In a phrase such as "the peoples of the earth, the word "peoples" is obviously plural - but "people" isn't...
So "none of whom are" is ALWAYS incorrect. How could it ever possibly be correct? Could you ever say "not one are here"? No of course you couldn't!
And, in this instance, the subject of the sentence is the "one", not the people. So, the verb must be singular.
And, just for the record, the noun "people" isn't plural - it's a singular noun being used to represent a single entity made up of more than one part. In a phrase such as "the peoples of the earth, the word "peoples" is obviously plural - but "people" isn't...
MarkRae, I always take none to be singular but Chambers Dictictionary says otherwise
“When none refers to a number of individual people or things, it can be followed by a singular or a plural verb, rather like a collective noun, depending on whether the individuals or the group as a whole are intended • The hotel is half a mile from the beach and none of the rooms overlook the sea • None of us has time for much else but the work in hand.”
As for people (or folk as it happens) I always take that as plural and the dictionary says “ people noun, usually plural 1 a set or group of persons... 7 singular (plural peoples) a nation or race • a warlike people”
Come the election, the folk of Britain will have their (not its) say.
“When none refers to a number of individual people or things, it can be followed by a singular or a plural verb, rather like a collective noun, depending on whether the individuals or the group as a whole are intended • The hotel is half a mile from the beach and none of the rooms overlook the sea • None of us has time for much else but the work in hand.”
As for people (or folk as it happens) I always take that as plural and the dictionary says “ people noun, usually plural 1 a set or group of persons... 7 singular (plural peoples) a nation or race • a warlike people”
Come the election, the folk of Britain will have their (not its) say.
For eighty years now, each successive edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage has been regarded as a kind of 'bible' in terms of the correct use of the language in this country and much of the rest of the English-speaking world. Here are the opening words from its entry on 'none'...(quote):
"It is a mistake to suppose that the pronoun is singular only and must at all costs be followed by singular verbs."
It then provides a multitude of singular and plural verb illustrations and closes the entry as follows...(quote)
"Verdict: use a singular verb where possible but if the notion of plurality is present a plural verb has been optional since the Old English period and in some circumstances is desirable."
It is clear that ‘none' has been either singular or plural for the past thousand years. Anyone - English teacher or not - who says otherwise is simply wrong! (I often wonder where these seemingly idiotic English teachers qualify!)
Just apply Fowler's 'ruling' to your list, Fred!
"It is a mistake to suppose that the pronoun is singular only and must at all costs be followed by singular verbs."
It then provides a multitude of singular and plural verb illustrations and closes the entry as follows...(quote)
"Verdict: use a singular verb where possible but if the notion of plurality is present a plural verb has been optional since the Old English period and in some circumstances is desirable."
It is clear that ‘none' has been either singular or plural for the past thousand years. Anyone - English teacher or not - who says otherwise is simply wrong! (I often wonder where these seemingly idiotic English teachers qualify!)
Just apply Fowler's 'ruling' to your list, Fred!
I should have added above that, in everyday speech, it is perfectly common and acceptable to use 'me' where prescriptive grammarians would say only 'I' is right. If we knock on a friend's door and she calls out, "Who is it?" we all reply, "It's me" despite the fact that, technically, the verb to be does not take the accusative case and we should supposedly say, "It is I."
'none' began life as 'no one' but that isn't necessarily what it means now. As dictionaries acknowledge, it can quite reasonably mean 'no two' or 'no three'. So 'none of whom are me' is acceptable. I prefer 'none of whom is me' myself - I think that's partly because 'me' is singular too and affects the way I compose the sentence. ('None of whom are sailors', with a plural word after the verb, sounds better.)
It's me'' for 'It's I ' or 'It is I' is justifiable by the logic that me is the object of a verb which is understood.When we say 'It's me' we are replying 'You are addressing me' not ' I am present'. It's really a question of what thought is in the responder's mind , not that he or she is conscious of applying or finding the rule of grammar that explains it.The responder is merely speaking English !
.
.
I don't agree, Fred. When we say, "It's me" in response to "Who is it?" we are NOT saying, "You are addressing me." We 'ought' (technically or in prescriptive grammar terms) to be saying,"It is I who am knocking"...addressing doesn't come into it. However, as I've already explained, it is perfectly acceptable in colloquial situations to replace the 'I' with 'me', making it, "It's me" with the "who am knocking" part unspoken but understood. Simples!
I don't think this is necessarily a matter of logic; English is not always logical. The thinking (or perhaps it should be 'feeling') behind saying 'it's me' rather than 'it's I' is probably that 'me' *sounds* clearer and more forceful. The French likewise say 'c'est moi' rather than 'c'est je'.
Likewise the answer to 'Who's there?' is normally 'Me!' rather than 'I!' 'I' just sounds too weak to stand alone without a verb. Same for 'he' and 'she' and so on.
Likewise the answer to 'Who's there?' is normally 'Me!' rather than 'I!' 'I' just sounds too weak to stand alone without a verb. Same for 'he' and 'she' and so on.
QM you are assuming a possible thought ( I am saying that I am knocking') in preference to another ( that I am the direct or indirect object of some verb which is unspoken). My point really is that grammarians go looking for rules, post factum, as often as not. Formerly they were especially fond of using Latin as a model for such 'rules' I found an example on another q and a site of someone reciting a grammarian's rule about the necessary use of the gerund, a rule only slightly harmed by the fact that the true gerund is not found in English but only in Latin, where, in any case, it could be avoided in exactly the circumstances where the rule in English grammar said it was essential !
The truth is that jno is right. Paraphrasing,if it sounds right it is right, whatever rules and exceptions are created to justify or deny it. Shakespeare used 'You and I' when,strictly by the rules of grammar both should have been in the accusative. He had his reasons. 'You and I' conveyed a nuance which 'you and me' did not. It sounded right and natural.' and so it was right.
The truth is that jno is right. Paraphrasing,if it sounds right it is right, whatever rules and exceptions are created to justify or deny it. Shakespeare used 'You and I' when,strictly by the rules of grammar both should have been in the accusative. He had his reasons. 'You and I' conveyed a nuance which 'you and me' did not. It sounded right and natural.' and so it was right.
For crying out loud! I wasn't SUPPORTING prescriptive grammar or suggesting that a Latinate linguistic model was the only correct one, I was explaining why such an approach is often utterly irrelevant in colloquial situations.
Nevertheless, I still maintain that - given that the words, "Who is it?" are a direct response to the SOUND of knocking - the relevant verb would be expressed as, "Who is it that IS KNOCKING?"
But what the hey!
Nevertheless, I still maintain that - given that the words, "Who is it?" are a direct response to the SOUND of knocking - the relevant verb would be expressed as, "Who is it that IS KNOCKING?"
But what the hey!
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
News1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Windows Coming Out Of Sleep Mode Issue.
Computers21 mins ago
