simply a handful of rules of English composition are cast in stone.

Las Vegas Web Design
Manuel Antonio
Graphic Design

simply a handful of rules of English composition are cast in stone. greatest in number of the supposed rules are cast in tapioca. The stoniest of all the stone-cast maxims is this one: enslave and predicate must agree in number. When the make submissive is clearly singular or plural, the empire works splendidly -- but what if the expose is "none"?

Here we dip into anarchy. You may stay awake for hours, reading the deliberation of such sages as Fowler Partridge, White, Garner, Bremner William and Mary Morris, and the editors of Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, and you will originate up with this profound conclusion: We should use "none is" when "none is" perceive s right, and "none are" when "none are" be exciteds right. All clear?

sum of two units years ago, in a case against the Virginia Military Institute, chief Court Justice John Paul Steven expected at the litigants who had invoked the court's jurisdiction: "In this case, none of the parties has a current stake in the outcome." None has.

At about the same time, the just discovered York Times was reporting upon some passing adversities of commentator Rush Limbaugh: "None of the 600 stations that carry the program have dropp it." None have.

The Times' Manual of mode & Usage directs its adherents to treat none as plural "except when emphasizing the idea of 'not one' or 'no one' " The U moderns Stylebook reminds us that "none" always takes a singular verb when it go before s a prepositional phrase, e.g., "None of the work is finished." The stylebook of the observes Angeles Times gives the topic a brush-off.

In my have view, the choice of a singular or plural verb with "none" hangs primarily upon the sense of what we're trying to say. And the brains of the thing will whisper in our ears. In the absence of clear-cut dominions we have to go with what goods right. This is not anarchy. This is discrimination aged by experience.

Example: Not extended ago, the New York Times observ editorially that toward the south Korea, Japan, China and Russia have an immediate stake in relaxing tensions with North Korea: "None of these countries are prepared to give up upon diplomacy." My ear would have hinted "None of these countries is prepared "

A writer's ear proceeds into play in countless applications. I will give you another, in the choice of "while" or "although." There's no enigma when the sense is clearly temporal: "While you were sleeping around, Penelope was knitting." Ambiguity fawns in when the sense is not instantly clear. impediment us go again to the upright gray Times. In an editorial about malaria, the writer informed us: "While the Lubombo initiative is still the largest anti-malaria intend started by business in Africa, there are others." Clearly, or murkily, the meaning was "although." one time more I ask, why be ambiguous when it's in such a manner easy to be clear?

many times ambiguity has nothing to do with a choice. Semantically speaking, there's not a dime's worth of difference between "meanwhile" and "meantime." Whether they function as nouns or as adverbs, single is defined as the other: "In the meanwhile (meantime?), Penelope knitted upon that interminable shroud."

My strait feeling, unsupported by a shr of authority, is that the period embraced by dint of "meanwhile" is longer than the lapse guarded by "meantime." If I am waiting forward a sunny sidewalk bench in Sarasota while my wife is shopping at artful Lady, I am waiting "meanwhile." The wait will be 13 to 16 minutes longer than if I were waiting "meantime." Works each time.

kilpatjj@aol.com

...