But both examples you're suggesting sound wrong to me, and here's why.
"One in ten residents is" ignores the fact that you're actually referring to roughly 10 million people. As in, "in Japan, 10 million people are over 80". If you were maybe saying something like "one of these ten people is" that makes more sense.
"None of these things is" ignores the fact you're talking about a quantity of 0. It's not the same as "not one of these things" because that is just a negation of "one of these things" you're saying "0 things are".
It may not be formally or technically correct, but I'm a native English speaker and they just feel right.
You just hurt my brain, but in a good way, like scraping off a layer of rust.
On the first point, you've convinced me. I wasn't thinking about the context of the phrase. After factoring that in, it makes more sense the way you put it.
But I'm still stuck on the second one. I don't disagree with the way you explained it, but for some reason I can't reconcile your reasoning with my intuition. Unfortunately, the only way I can rationalize it is by gesturing broadly toward older literature, from the early 20th century. There's something about the artistic style people used that I've always found beautiful, and my usage of "not one", to me, kind of fits. I admit it makes no logical sense, but in my mind it feels as correct as anything else.
Regardless, I'll consider your logic next time I use "none" because you're definitely not wrong about it.
"Not one are" sounds wrong to me but "None are" sounds correct. I want to check English rules, one sec
Okay, so it appears "none" can be singular or plural. So it can also mean "not one of any" so "none are" is grammatically correct. Interestingly, "none is" vs "none are" is apparently something not infrequently debated.
I see you.
But both examples you're suggesting sound wrong to me, and here's why.
"One in ten residents is" ignores the fact that you're actually referring to roughly 10 million people. As in, "in Japan, 10 million people are over 80". If you were maybe saying something like "one of these ten people is" that makes more sense.
"None of these things is" ignores the fact you're talking about a quantity of 0. It's not the same as "not one of these things" because that is just a negation of "one of these things" you're saying "0 things are".
It may not be formally or technically correct, but I'm a native English speaker and they just feel right.
You just hurt my brain, but in a good way, like scraping off a layer of rust.
On the first point, you've convinced me. I wasn't thinking about the context of the phrase. After factoring that in, it makes more sense the way you put it.
But I'm still stuck on the second one. I don't disagree with the way you explained it, but for some reason I can't reconcile your reasoning with my intuition. Unfortunately, the only way I can rationalize it is by gesturing broadly toward older literature, from the early 20th century. There's something about the artistic style people used that I've always found beautiful, and my usage of "not one", to me, kind of fits. I admit it makes no logical sense, but in my mind it feels as correct as anything else.
Regardless, I'll consider your logic next time I use "none" because you're definitely not wrong about it.
"Not one are" sounds wrong to me but "None are" sounds correct. I want to check English rules, one sec
Okay, so it appears "none" can be singular or plural. So it can also mean "not one of any" so "none are" is grammatically correct. Interestingly, "none is" vs "none are" is apparently something not infrequently debated.
Sources: Grammarbook
Merriam Webster
Also, could someone tell me how to force a line break?
That's interesting. I should explore the syntax of my native language more, haha. Thanks for the sources!
As for line breaks, I'm not sure if some variant of \n works (guess we'll find out), but I just hit enter twice when I want one.
For some reason it didn't work there. Oh well