The following is a paragraph from _The Summons_ by John Grisham.
<< They strolled into the front entrance of the law school, chatting
aimlessly about the final exam. She was easing closer with each
flirtation, warming up to the zone, the only one who knew where she
might be headed with this. >>
My question is: what is 'the zone'? It appears that the zone and the
only one who... are the same person.
I checked the spelling and any typographical errors. There is none.
David
David E wrote on 19 Oct 2004:
> The following is a paragraph from _The Summons_ by John Grisham.
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> My question is: what is 'the zone'? It appears that the zone and the
> only one who... are the same person.
Or it might be that "She" (at the beginning of the sentence) and "the
only one who knew where she might be headed with this" might be the
same person. I doubt that "the zone" is a person. If it's a nickname,
it would be capitalized.
There's a best selling book titled _Mastering the Zone: The Next Step
in Achieving SuperHealth and Permanent Fat Loss_ by Barry Sears. You
might want to check that out. Or else it's some other kind of zone that
might have been mentioned earlier in the book, or it's the erogenous
zone.

Signature
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
> The following is a paragraph from _The Summons_ by John
> Grisham.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> with each flirtation, warming up to the zone, the only one who
> knew where she might be headed with this. >>
> My question is: what is 'the zone'? It appears that the zone
> and the only one who... are the same person.
It isn't clear. My guess would be that it means she was
approaching a point where she would be intimately close.
> I checked the spelling and any typographical errors. There is
> none.
That should be "There are none". Don't ask me why "none" is
plural in English - it strikes me as odd, too, but that's the way
it works. Interestingly, "no" used in the sense of "none", can go
both ways:
There were no people there.
There was no reason for that.
There is no bread left (remember that 'bread' is uncountable).
There are no sandwiches left.

Signature
Mark Barratt
Budapest
CyberCypher - 19 Oct 2004 11:07 GMT
Mark Barratt wrote on 19 Oct 2004:
>> The following is a paragraph from _The Summons_ by John
>> Grisham.
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> There is no bread left (remember that 'bread' is uncountable).
> There are no sandwiches left.
"None" can be singular as well: "I looked for a typographical error,
but there was none". The reason that "none" is plural above is that
it is a pronoun that stands for the plural "typographical errors".
From AHD4 about *none*:
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 an, "one," but the
word has been used as both a singular and a plural noun from Old
English onward. The plural usage appears in the King James Bible as
well as the works of John Dryden and Edmund Burke and is widespread
in the works of respectable writers today.
Of course, the singular usage is perfectly acceptable.
The choice between a singular or plural verb depends on the desired
effect.
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* can only be plural in its use in
sentences such as "None but his most loyal supporters believe (not
believes) his story".

Signature
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.