grammatical number - "None" as plural indefinite pronoun

None is indeed originally from not one or not a/an (since this happened before one and a/an became separate words, c.f. How French uses un/une for both the number one, and the indefinite article).

At the time that this happened though, it could be declined according to gender, number and case. King Alfred's translation of Boëthius' Consolatio Philosophiae (888CE) uses none not just plural but in a plural form.

So, even in very early use, while its origins may have been from not one, it had a meaning not any, and hence could be plural as well as singular.

It's also worth noting at this point, that no is also derived from not one in many senses (where used as a negative response, it has a different origin; no is a merging of two words), and it's use with both singular and plural use is less controversial (though not without differences of opinion as to just when it should be treated which way).

It would seem that the “logical” argument that none must be singular, because not one/not a/not an is singular is mistaking the word’s etymology for the word itself.

Of course, in leaving a defence of none being used in both the singular and the plural at this point, I could be doing the same thing: After all, Old English had different forms, and we do not. Some forms have given us separate words and we now have why as a separate word from what rather than their being the same word with different declensions.

It’s perfectly possible therefore, that by Modern English, none had become singular. However, it had not:

I will converse with iron-witted fools

And unrespective boys: none are for me

That look into me with considerate eyes:

High-reaching Buckingham grows circumspect.—Shakespeare, “Richard III”, Act IV, Scene ii

Before him there were none so beautiful, even from the beginning.—Ecclestiastes 45:15 DV

For the people were numbered, and, behold, there were none of the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead there.—Judges 21:9 KJV

None that go unto her return again, neither take they hold of the paths of life.—Proverbs 2:19 KJV

None were his friends but courtiers and clergymen, the worst at that time, and most corrupted sort of men; and court ladies, not the best of women; who, when they grow to that insolence as to appear active in state-affairs, are the certain sign of a dissolute, degenerate, and pusillanimous commonwealth.—Milton, “Upon The Earl of Strafford’s Death”

So was this a new strictness introduced in the 18th or 19th centuries, when some of the more notorious “rules” in English were introduced?
Lindley Murray’s English grammar: adapted to the different classes of learners, with an appendix, containing rules and observations for assisting the more advanced students to write with perspicuity and accuracy (1835) argues:

None is used in both numbers: as, “None is so deaf as he that will not hear;” “None of those are equal to these.” It seems originally to have signified, according to its derivation, not one, and therefore to have had no plural; but there is good authority for the use of it in the plural number: as, “None that go unto her return again.” Prov. ii. 19. “Terms of peace were none vouchsaf'd” MILTON. “None of them are varied to express the gender.” “None of them have different endings for the numbers.” Lowth’s Introduction. (Emphasis his).

Interestingly, he cites the “not one” argument for singular-only use, and seems to suspect none was once singular-only for this reason, but is quick to reject it. One example quoted is from the KJV as given above, “Lowth’s Introduction” mentioned above is Archbishop Lowth’s A Short Introduction to English Grammar, so looking at this 19th Century grammarian gives us an 18th Century grammarian for free!

At the same time, it does point to when the edict against plural none may have arisen. We might suspect it came with modern style-guides choices being taken as overall edicts upon the language, but that Murray mentions the “not one” derivation could mean he is taken the effort to debunk advice found anywhere.

Still, with this bringing us close enough to the current age that we can take the very existence of questions like this on websites like this to bring us through to the home stretch, it’s safe to conclude:

1. None can be both singular and plural in use.


2. None’s being both singular and plural in use goes back to the earliest days of the language.


3. None’s being both singular and plural in use continued through to the earliest days of the modern form of the language.


4. None’s being both singular and plural in use was recognised by those who would have been strictest in their opinions on how English should be written.

If nothing else, the form “Almost none…” would seem to forbid the singular,
rather than the plural:

*Almost none of the apples is edible.