No one

The Raven.

‘No one’, or ‘no-one’: no person; not anyone; nobody, as in ‘No one saw it.’

For some peculiar reason, some people write ‘noone’ instead of the correct spelling, which is either ‘no one’ or ‘no-one’. This may be because they think it is one word like ‘anyone’ or ‘someone’. Whatever the reason, it should be patently obvious that it looks wrong. I have to say that it stands out like a sore thumb in otherwise intelligent posts :eek:!!

FlutterinBantam

Not guilty m'lud:rolleyes:

The Raven.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Not guilty m'lud:rolleyes:

I know you're not. I would never accuse you of that !!

However, some Boardies do use it. Yet, when I do a search, it doesn't come up. Funny that !!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Aard

I remember using that spelling in 5th class, and the teacher 'corrected' it to none.

???

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Honey-ec

Michael Connelly managed to make the noone/no-one pun the entire basis of his novel "Blood Work".

Flutterin' Bantam, I have to say, I can only imagine the shock in AH if the regulars there saw this side of you!

MathsManiac

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You're asserting that people who say such things think that "no one" is plural. Is it not more reasonable to accept that they are following the well established practice of using "their" as an indeterminate possessive pronoun that properly agrees with the indeterminate antecedent? Irrespective of whether you dislike this as a style, it seems unreasonable to attribute it to ignorance rather than choice, particularly since it is the recommended construction in a lot of style guides.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they, or Google "singular they" for as much debate as you like about such use of "they".

The Raven.

I would find this statement acceptable if it weren’t for the fact that ‘seats’ is plural. It is highly unlikely that members of an audience at a performance would occupy more than one seat. This would suggest that the speaker should have said ‘No one should leave their seat until the performance finishes.’

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Aard

I suppose it's back to the old descriptivism-prescriptivism chestnut .

The Raven.

Aard wrote: »

I suppose it's back to the old descriptivism-prescriptivism chestnut .

Oh, I think it’s gone beyond that, Aard !!

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Donegalfella, I agree that there is a problem, but I would never regard the use of the ‘traditional’ or any other ‘he’ as ‘gender-neutral’, not even in the case of a hermaphrodite !!




One now leaves one's seat as the performance is over.

MathsManiac

The Raven. wrote: »

I would find this statement acceptable if it weren’t for the fact that ‘seats’ is plural. It is highly unlikely that members of an audience at a performance would occupy more than one seat. This would suggest that the speaker should have said ‘No one should leave their seat until the performance finishes.’

That's a bit of a red herring, in my view. The point is that "no-one" is being regarded as of indeterminate number. It seems clear from the references I've looked at that both "their seat" and "their seats" would be regarded as acceptable here, although the preference would indeed be for the former.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Attributing this to feminist grammarians might help you to dismiss it, but the use of "they" as a generic singular pronoun has a history at least as long as the use of "he", which you assert to be "traditional". Nineteenth- and early twentieth-century prescripive grammarians, including Fowler, certainly disliked it, but they failed to expunge it even from standard writing, not to mention informal writing and speech.

I don't especially like it myself, and generally attempt to avoid it in writing by reworking the sentence. (E.g. "Everyone should remain seated until the performance is finished".) However, I stand by my original point: implying that ignorance rather than choice lies behind this usage seems to me unreasonable when it is widely regarded as acceptable. A quick perusal of some books on my shelf yields:

English Grammar (Collins Gem), while indicating that the singular is required in formal writing, says: "Common practice, which is increasingly accepted, uses the plural form their or theirs..." and the book offers, as examples of acceptable usage: "Has anybody finished theirs yet?" and "Everybody applauded their own son."

Good English Guide (Chambers) again recognises that "in the past, grammarians have recommended the use of his, him, etc. in such contexts" but goes on to give examples of the use of them, their, etc. and says "This is now acceptable to almost all speakers of English in informal contexts, and is increasingly common in formal speech and writing as well, though still disapproved of by some purists. There is no reason to avoid this use of them, their, etc."

Chambers dictionary gives "his or her" as a secondary meaning of "their", without any indication that it's colloquial or informal.

My Concise Oxford is from 1990 (8th edition) and lists this usage as "disputed", and it would be interesting to know whether newer editions do too.

In the 3rd edition of "Fowler's Modern English Usage" (Oxford), Burchfield writes: "Over the centuries, writers of standing have used they, their, and them with anamorphic reference to a singular pronoun or noun, and the practice has continued in the 20C. to the point that, traditional grammarians aside, such constructions are hardly noticed any more or are not widely felt to lie in a prohibited zone."

donegalfella wrote: »

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the traditional gender-neutral "he," and so would write the sentence "No one should leave his seat until the performance finishes."

You may see nothing wrong with it, but many do. Accordingly, efforts to avoid it are not unreasonable.

The Raven.

MathsManiac wrote: »

That's a bit of a red herring, in my view. The point is that "no-one" is being regarded as of indeterminate number. It seems clear from the references I've looked at that both "their seat" and "their seats" would be regarded as acceptable here, although the preference would indeed be for the former.

Red herring: a deliberate attempt to change a subject or divert an argument.

No, thank you. That was certainly not my intention. You evidently missed the point I was making, which I would have thought was pretty obvious. My point was that the use of the plural ‘seats’ implies that the speaker is referring to more than one person, but incorrectly using the singular ‘no one’, which is the title of this thread.

I find the use of ‘their seat’ acceptable in this instance, while ‘their seats’ would be acceptable only if each person sat on more than one seat, which would obviously be ridiculous in this context. Therefore, apart from rephrasing the sentence, I would suggest either of the following:

‘No one should leave their seat until the performance finishes.’

‘No people should leave their seats until the performance finishes.’

MathsManiac

Fair enough. I apologise.

I intended to convey that I took it that donegalfella's main concern was the use of "their" with "no one", and that whether or not one followed it with "seat" or "seats" was of lesser significance.

I infer from his/her last post that (s)he would be unhappy with both, (not to mention this sentence!)

The Raven.

Apology accepted, MathsManiac. It matters !!

Yes, things went a little off-topic, but you did have some good points in your post. I'm afraid my Concise Oxford Dictionary is dated 1964, so it wouldn't be of much help. My Chambers is even older.

No I don't think s/He would be happy with either. Sorry, Donegal. Couldn't resist. Congratulations on becoming a Mod :cool:!!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Honey-ec

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But sher didn't he ondly love Oirland, arra we'd forgive him annyting fer da!

The Raven.

The Raven. wrote: »

‘No one’, or ‘no-one’: no person; not anyone; nobody, as in ‘No one saw it.’

For some peculiar reason, some people write ‘noone’ instead of the correct spelling, which is either ‘no one’ or ‘no-one’. This may be because they think it is one word like ‘anyone’ or ‘someone’. Whatever the reason, it should be patently obvious that it looks wrong. I have to say that it stands out like a sore thumb in otherwise intelligent posts :eek:!!

This is gaining ground again on Boards.ie. It seemed to have stopped for a while, but now it's back and it really makes me cringe :mad::eek::mad:!!!

MathsManiac

And strangely, the people who write "noone" rarely write "midnighte".

K4t

This subject has already been covered on QI

The Raven.

MathsManiac wrote: »

And strangely, the people who write "noone" rarely write "midnighte".

'midnighte' ?? You've lost me there!

K4t wrote: »

This subject has already been covered on QI

What is QI ??

MathsManiac

The Raven. wrote: »

'midnighte' ?? You've lost me there!

Well, since there's no such word as "noone", I have no idea how it ought to be pronounced, so I have to assume from its spelling that, if there were such a word, it would be pronounced the same as "noon"...

(What little humour I thought it had seems to evaporate when I have to explain it. Sorry!)

The Raven. wrote: »

What is QI ??

It's a TV programme on BBC.