That’s not incorrect. None of us is, or none of us are, are both standard. Your other sentence just sounds colloquial.
That’s not incorrect. None of us is, or none of us are, are both standard. Your other sentence just sounds colloquial.[/quote]
Stick to your day job, lover. The first example was a badly constructed conditional. The second sentence would sound dumb in the past tense. None of us was going.
See. Speaking the language has no bearing on fully understanding the language.
I will. And thank god no professional gives a shit about what you think. 
If that sounds mean, well yeah it is. I have been a professional writer and editor for the last 15 years and worked with a great variety of educated, smart, witty, talented people. Once you get a little experience, and shed the trivial lessons of elementary school, you learn the English language is astonishingly fluid and varied. A sentence you are sure is a mess will seem fine to someone else. And vice versa. So you end up spending years studying usage guides, and grammar books, and linguistic papers, looking for clear answers, and find, again, that unless you are a saucy little pedant with a penchant for being narrowly right, and broadly wrong, the English language is not as tight as you imagined.
So again, think what you like, but realize no professional gives a shit.
I will. And thank god no professional gives a shit about what you think. [/quote]
Awesome news. Language has no meaning in any form then. Great. I’ll slacken off a bit.
And hey, when people tell you that you have a sense of humour they mean that you sense that humour exists, not that you are funny.
A language spoken across dozens of countries and by hundreds of millions of people is going to have more than a little variety. That’s it. Pretty simple, really, though people who are insecure often have to be narrowly right as a class or educational marker. Me, I don’t care. I’ve studied all the books and there are no tight neat answers in many cases just conventions and regionalisms.
So yeah, loosen up a bit.
Well it’s not a great sentence, but grammatically it’s just fine.
“Did Stacey and Eric tell you they need a ride to Mark’s party at 8?”
“Nobody told me there was a party, and it’s 7:58 already! I’d have gone if I’d have known. Now none of us is going!”
Now the sentences you really have to look for are
“I’d of come if I’d of known. Now none of us are going.”
If I’d known, I would have gone. Now none of us are going.
It’s like amateur hour up in here.
MM, I see what you are saying. You have muddled by just fine and now you are in a position where you don’t care to avoid your errors because nobody has ever told you they are important enough to correct. Get by until you get rumbled, then laugh it off as needless nit picking.
Anyway, the debate about what is correct vs what is used is more philosophical. You were asking how spoken errors occur. I showed you two. You ignored them. Seems like a regular forumosa ‘conversation.’ Joy.
[quote=“Hokwongwei”]…Now the sentences you really have to look for are
“I’d of come if I’d of known. Now none of us are going.”[/quote]
That’s just a spelling error as people pronounce “have” as “of”.
Curious what you find wrong with None of us are. Notional agreement is a funny thing in English and is often affected by how we mentally imagine the scene. Us as a group, or us as a bunch of people. If for example you wrote Now none of us regular god-fearing boys are going" you would almost certainly write “are”. The further “none” gets from the verb, and the more qualified, the more likely the speaker is to use a plural form of the be verb.
I do feel sorry that you need to be narrowly correct in your language usage. As I wrote, must be a class thing. Poor boy.
I do feel sorry that you need to be narrowly correct in your language usage. As I wrote, must be a class thing. Poor boy.[/quote]
We are talking about teaching English and passing on errors. If you went for an interview for an English job and couldn’t explain what that conditional error was then you shouldn’t be offered a job.“Language is fluid and complicated,” is NOT a good answer and it doesn’t mean I have a narrow view. It seems to indicate that you don’t know English as well as you think, and would rather try to belittle someone instead of accepting your mistakes.
Anyway, have we both had a suitable daily pointless internet fight? I’m pretty satisfied at my end, how about you, old chap? 
Teachers that get bent on these types of grammar mistakes are most likely focusing on the wrong type of material in class.
Different standards should apply in different situations. The importance of any standard to be applied to everyday speech is pretty low. When you’re talking about teaching English to people, it’s a different story. There are rules. We say “he don’t blah blah blah” in NYC a lot for example, which I’m fine with, but I wouldn’t call it correct or teach it to anyone as such.
MM is quite right. “Now none of us is going” is fine and correct. “None of us” can mean either “not one of us”, in which case it takes the singular “is”, or “not any of us”, in which case it sits more comfortably with the plural “are”.
However, “I’d have gone if I’d have known” is most definitely incorrect. The second “have” should not be there. The first “I’d” is an abbreviation of “I would”, whereas the second “I’d” is an abbreviation of “I had”. You cannot say “if I had have known”, that’s quite horribly wrong, so the second “have” certainly has to go.
[quote=“Omniloquacious”]
However, “I’d have gone if I’d have known” is most definitely incorrect. The second “have” should not be there. The first “I’d” is an abbreviation of “I would”, whereas the second “I’d” is an abbreviation of “I had”. You cannot say “if I had have known”, that’s quite horribly wrong, so the second “have” certainly has to go.[/quote]
One might conceivably say “if I would have known” however. I agree it’s not correct. Having said that, IMO the probability of anyone acquiring the third conditional strictly through grammatically-pure instruction and without considerable ordinary input is pretty low 
It would be pretty pedantic to bring it up if someone, student or native speaker, said it.
I’d say that. Sounds normal enough. Secnd abbrv is ‘would’, not ‘had’. Inelegant, perhaps, but it’s flob: everyone writes like they have head injuries on here, especially the ‘professionals’ (I include myself, because people pay me to write shit they want other people to read for money). Tired, I guess. S’no big deal, surely? Just soops snarking at MM because he’s a bit pompous in that American defensive way and it’s funny to make him go off on one about his credentials?
Good grief. Thank god you all live in Asia, what with your penchant for Chinese Whispers.
My adult students are perfectly aware that I am not a qualified English teacher, just a western guy with a degree. They are not willing to pay for a qualified teacher and, therefore, I am not willing to become one. 
Some have thefreedictionary.com thrust upon them.
[quote=“American Heritage® Dictionary”]none (nŭn)
pron.
- No one; not one; nobody: None dared to do it.
- Not any: None of my classmates survived the war.
- No part; not any: none of your business.
adv. - Not at all: He is none too ill.
- In no way: The jeans looked none the better for having been washed.
[Middle English, from Old English nān : ne, no, not; see ne in Indo-European roots + ān, one; see oi-no- in Indo-European roots.]
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 ān, “one,” but the word has been used as both a singular and a plural since the ninth century. The plural usage appears in the King James Bible (“All the drinking vessels of king Solomon were of gold … none were of silver”) as well as the works of canonical writers like Shakespeare, John Dryden, and Edmund Burke. It is widespread in the works of respectable writers today. Of course, the singular usage is perfectly acceptable. Choosing between singular or plural is thus more of a stylistic matter than a grammatical one. 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 is most often treated as plural in its use in sentences such as None but his most loyal supporters believe (not believes) his story. See Usage Notes at every, neither, nothing.
[/quote]
[quote=“Collins English Dictionary”]none (nʌn)
pron
- not any of a particular class: none of my letters has arrived.
- no-one; nobody: there was none to tell the tale.
- no part (of a whole); not any (of): none of it looks edible.
- none other no other person: none other than the Queen herself.
- none the (foll by a comparative adjective) in no degree: she was none the worse for her ordeal.
- none too not very: he was none too pleased with his car.
[Old English nān, literally: not one]
Usage: None is a singular pronoun and should be used with a singular form of a verb: none of the students has (not have) a car
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003[/quote]
[quote=“Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary”]none1 (nʌn)
pron.
- no one; not one: None of the members is going.
- not any: That is none of your business.
- no part; nothing: I’ll have none of that.
- (used with a pl. v.) no or not any persons or things: There were two coats on the rack and now there are none.
adv. - to no extent; not at all: We saw the ceremony none too well.
adj. - Archaic. not any; no (usu. used only before a vowel or h): none other gods.
[before 900; Middle English non, Old English nān=ne not + ān one]
usage.: Although a traditional rule of usage has been that none must always be treated as singular, this pronoun has been used with both singular and plural verbs since the 9th century. When the sense is “not any persons or things,” the plural is more common: The rescue party searched for survivors, but none were found. When none is clearly intended to mean “not one” or “not any,” it is followed by a singular verb: Of all my court cases, none has been stranger than yours.[/quote]
:snore:
“What with” is a pretty interesting idiom.
Superking, I’ve got one for you.
I’d agree with that for the most part. The phrase has a nice colloquial rhythm to it, but it really doesn’t work grammatically (if we take standard English as our standard) when you de-contract it. I wasn’t really paying that much attention to it as “none of us” was standing out to me in need of defense.
Interesting, this type of construction appears to be very commonly tagged in college essay writing classes, according to some websites I looked at. Websters Dictionary of English Usage has been noting its use since the 1920s. It would seem that our language has a strong tendency toward such phrasing if it has such a “venerable” tradition. Might even be a dialectic form, as for example, “I seen.”
Anyway, seems likely its a mishmash of “If I’d…I’d (would) have…”