My research at the University of Google seems to suggest that the plural-status of "none" is historically complicated. The OED suggests that both are historically valid and used. Further, the use of singular or plural seems to be based on whether the object being referred to is a group or not. This makes sense, since the sentence "None of the cookies were eaten" actually addresses all of the cookies in a negation. However, "None of the cookie was eaten" concerns the quality of a specific cookie. Of course, I could very well be wrong, but it feels so right. Edit: Also, something like: - None of them was the culprit. - None of them were the culprits. versus - None of them were the culprit. - None of them was the culprits. The last two sound very incorrect... So maybe there really isn't a hard-and-fast rule.
Yeah, "none" is a tricky word. I was going for the standard English teacher prescriptivist "none is always singular" view, which is very simplified. That's the point :DThe last two sound very incorrect... So maybe there really isn't a hard-and-fast rule.