John Jones
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:13 am Post subject: None of them was there |
 |
|
We say "none of them was there" and not "none of them were there". This
is what we are taught in english grammar. 'One' is treated the same way
as 'none' - so we say "one of them is ..." and "none of them is...".
That is, we count one zero and one 'one'.
This is strange, as one divided by zero should be one, but we don>t
treat zero in that way. Instead, zero is treated as a vanishingly, but
not completely small version of 'one', that gives us an indefinite or
infinite product when divided into one.
Strange again, is the way we negate the objects we call numbers. "Not P"
doesn>t give us more P>s. But "not zero" gives us more numbers. Which
makes us wonder how (if zero is a vanishingly, but not completely small
version of 'one')"not zero" gives us the option of considering it as one
or more.
More irritating examples can be found:
"Not one" says none, some, or all, but "not one of them" says only none. |
|
