Talk:LMS Ivatt Class 2 2-6-0

Grammar
I quote to you my thoughts on the matter, as a native english speaker with a strong (Midlands) grasp of the British English language:


 * "I would always start with the plural verb, based on the "hearing" of the omitted group:


 * None [of the singers] were very good.


 * Then I would change it to the singular verb if the "expectation of the number of matches" is singular.


 * None [of the singers] were coming. (one or more of them COULD be coming, therefore, plural).


 * None [of them] was Mr Right. (There will only be one (or zero) Mr Rights, therefore singular)


 * None [of the singers] was a soprano.
 * None [of the singers] were sopranos."

In this case, engines is a plural, therefore I feel that the entry should read ' None (Not one) of the engines were named. HawkerTyphoon 22:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit:


 * It should be either:
 * None of the engines were named

or
 * Not one of the engines was named

I like to think of myself as a non-pedant - however this issue has perturbed and annoyed me somewhat. The correct useage in this instance is quite clearly, without a shadow of a doubt - and I would actually be willing to bet both of my testicles on the matter - "none of them WERE", and most definitely not "none of them WAS". An example if you will - compare the following phrases: "first there were some, now there is none"; "first there were some, now there are none". Grammatically, the latter example is quite clearly correct, and in the context of this article, is the appropriate choice of words to use. As you were originally referring to a plural, however abstract that plural may be, the hypothetical absence of this plural should also be grammatically referred to plurally. If I am proven wrong on this matter, please feel free to take my testes and do with them what thou wilt. Yeanold Viskersenn 00:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural:


 * ...in English, German, Italian, Spanish and European Portuguese, the plural form is used for zero or more than one, and the singular for one thing only. By contrast, in French and Brazilian Portuguese, the singular form is used for zero.

"Were" is the plural form of "was" and therefore the amendment made by HawkerTyphoon is correct. "None were named". Yeanold Viskersenn 12:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No. None is a singular.  It is not a plural; "trees" would be a plural of "tree".  It takes the singular because it means negative- one (as using n to form the negative, as in or/nor).  Anyone teach you any grammar at school?  &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 21:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.


 * Please don't make personal attacks on other Wikipedians, Duncharris. From what I can see, you are referring to the locomotives, and the current community consensus (only three of us, though) seems to be that locomotives is a plural, and that plurals use 'were'. I am assuming that you were taught in Britain, in which case you were taught using the pre-1990s syllabus, which advocated the use of the 'none' purely as a singular word. This is not the case nowadays - University courses in English Literature and English Language teach that the word can be used as either plural, or singular. HawkerTyphoon 22:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I learnt grammar at school, and I'll thank you not to make personal offensive comments. You appear to have ignored my above citation on the use of plurals in English. None is not a singular. In this case "none" is plural, as it is being used as a modifier for "locomotives", which is clearly plural. In fact in that same sentence you used "were" in relation to the same locomotives - therefore you are using both "were" and "was" in reference to the plural "Swindon locomotives".
 * Also - "None" does not mean "negative one", it means "not any", as is demonstrated in the phrase "none of your business". If you can provide some distinct reference to prove that "none was" is the correct term, when referring to a plural, please do - your time would be better spent doing so than questioning my education. Yeanold Viskersenn 22:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * PS - From Strunk & White's renowned grammar pamphlet The Elements of Style:
 * A plural verb is commonly used when none suggests more than one thing or person.
 * Yeanold Viskersenn 22:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've done some copy-editing to the page since the none was/were really was the least of the grammatical issues. I changed the controversial sentence to read "None of them were named." which I hope makes it clear that the plural "were" is appropriate here. There are plenty of further improvements that can be made to this article both in grammar and information. Let's all be bold. Gw e rnol 19:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's not. See verb.  A verb must agree with its object.  You have it agreeing with its subject.  e.g. in the phrase "none of it was", "none" is the object, "it" is the subject.  If we chaneg the phrase to "none of them were", the subject (none) remains the same, yet bizarrely the noun agreement changes.  That is nonsensical.  &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 12:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I read verb which say "English only shows distinctive agreement in the third person singular, present tense form of verbs". Since we are talking about a plural (there was more than one Class 2) and in the past tense, it isn't applicable. On the other hand, this tells us both that "Strictly speaking, none has never been only a singular noun" and that "Across all levels of English usage... people use a singular or plural verb with none according to the principles of... 'notional agreement'". It seems clear that we are talking about the case where: "If none as a subject refers to something that seems multiple by nature, a speaker will use a plural verb", so we should use "were" not "was".


 * For further reference, try this, and this. Best, Gw e rnol 12:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Nickname
The article states that these locomotives were referred to by the affectionate nickname "Mickey Mouse", Is it possible to provide an explanation as to why they aquired this nickname? As I cannot see any obvious link between these locomotives and Mickey Mouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.236.56 (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Good grief!
"The 2-6-0s had greater range: 3,000 imperial gallons or 14,000 litres or 3,600 US gallons of water and 4 long tons or 4.1 tonnes or 4.5 short tons of coal compared to the tank design's 1,350 imperial gallons or 6,100 litres or 1,620 US gallons and 3 long tons or 3.05 tonnes or 3.36 short tons. "

Is it really necessary to include US measures for an article about a British locomotive? Surely just imperial with metric equivalent in brackets would be enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.2.34.156 (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I want 46521 to carry the name 'Blossom' again.
I want 46521 to carry its name 'Blossom' again. Because I like that name of the engine, since 46521: Blossom starred in the Oh Doctor Beeching! series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.218.46.174 (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 5.4 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for discussion on how to improve the LMS Ivatt Class 2 2-6-0 article. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)