A question

Question

The following is a paragraph from The Summons by John Grisham.

>
My question is: what is 'the zone'? It appears that the zone and the only one who... are the same person.
I checked the spelling and any typographical errors. There is none.

David

Usenet · Accepted Answer

David E wrote on 19 Oct 2004:
[nq:1]The following is a paragraph from The Summons by John Grisham. << They strolled into the front entrance ... question is: what is 'the zone'? It appears that the zone and the only one who... are the same person.[/nq]
Or it might be that "She" (at the beginning of the sentence) and "the only one who knew where she might be headed with this" might be the same person. I doubt that "the zone" is a person. If it's a nickname, it would be capitalized.
There's a best selling book titled Mastering the Zone: The Next Step in Achieving SuperHealth and Permanent Fat Loss by Barry Sears. You might want to check that out. Or else it's some other kind of zone that might have been mentioned earlier in the book, or it's the erogenous zone.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]The following is a paragraph from The Summons by John Grisham. << They strolled into the front entrance ... question is: what is 'the zone'? It appears that the zone and the only one who... are the same person.[/nq]
It isn't clear. My guess would be that it means she was approaching a point where she would be intimately close.
[nq:1]I checked the spelling and any typographical errors. There is none.[/nq]
That should be "There are none". Don't ask me why "none" is plural in English - it strikes me as odd, too, but that's the way it works. Interestingly, "no" used in the sense of "none", can go both ways:
There were no people there.
There was no reason for that.
There is no bread left (remember that 'bread' is uncountable). There are no sandwiches left.

Mark Barratt
Budapest

Usenet · Answer

Mark Barratt wrote on 19 Oct 2004:

"None" can be singular as well: "I looked for a typographical error, but there was none". The reason that "none" is plural above is that it is a pronoun that stands for the plural "typographical errors".

From AHD4 about none:
Usage Note: It is widely asserted that none* is equivalent to no one, and hence requires a singular verb and singular pronoun: None of the prisoners was given his soup. It is true that *none is etymologically derived from the Old English word an, "one," but the word has been used as both a singular and a plural noun from Old English onward. The plural usage appears in the King James Bible as well as the works of John Dryden and Edmund Burke and is widespread in the works of respectable writers today.
Of course, the singular usage is perfectly acceptable.

The choice between a singular or plural verb depends on the desired effect.
Both options are acceptable in this sentence: None* of the conspirators has (or have) been brought to trial. When *none* is modified by almost, however, it is difficult to avoid treating the word as a plural: Almost *none* of the officials were (not was) interviewed by the committee. *None can only be plural in its use in sentences such as "None but his most loyal supporters believe (not believes) his story".

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.

A question

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions