Tried searching to no avail, here and Google.
Is there consensus on whether “none” is plural or singular? It seems plural to me based on the usage: “None of us knows the answer.” Us is referred to by none and us is plural. QED (to me, anyway).
Language mavens?
What does “none” mean? “No one” or “not one,” and “one” is obviously singular.
I thought a plurality of nones was a “convent”.
None of use knows the answer = Not one of us knows the answer.
*None * is singular. Not any is plural.
In colloquial English, none can be plural (“None of the penguins are rioting”). In formal standard English, “none” is always singular for the reasons mentioned above. I’m one of those native English speakers who uses plural “none,” and it sounds wrong to me to say “none of them is…” even though it is correct to do so. I think the colloquial usage must have arisen by analogy with “there,” which is a placeholder and not marked for singular or plural.
Not obvious to me: from New World Dictionary (only one I have handy):
'[usually with pl. v.] no persons or things; not any…"
I’m told either is correct (no cite, sorry. Short on time). The plural sounds bad to my ear, so I always use the singular.
Are there cows in that field?
There are none.
or
There is none.
Where are the guests?
None have arrived yet.
or
None has arrived yet.
First one sounds better to me in both cases.
Applause!
From what I understand, none has been either plural or singular for as long as it’s existed – at all levels.
IANAL(inguist), of course, but Ben Zimmer is, and he’s recently commented on this. Twice, in fact.
Re: Ben Zimmer.
Interesting reading. I wish he’d shown his work more, though.
In his first column, he mentions the derivation from Old English nê “no” + ân “one.” Well and good, that’s an etymological starting point. Then he says it could be inflected in either the singular or the plural. I wish he’d given an example. Its declension would be regular, so of course it could be, but none of my admittedly limited references show a use of plural “none” in Old or Middle English. Then he tells us in the second column that “It’s a bit hard for me to fathom why anyone might still be clinging to the notion that none can only be used with singular verbs in the misguided belief that it is a shortened form of not one,” when he has just told us that it is a shortened form of a word for *no * and a word for one. Not the consistency I want from my language mavens.
On another note, both “no” and “zero” take a plural noun:
I have no double-wide trailers. There are zero cats in the refrigerator. (Of course, for all I know, this could be the old genitive rearing its head and not the plural at all.)
In the example you’ve given you’re treating it as singular. If it were plural you’d say, “None of us know the answer.” The subject (“none”) requires the third person form of the verb “to know” - the present tense third person singular form is “knows” and the plural form is “know.”
This example may be confusing due to the pronoun “us.” It’s not the subject of the sentence, but its presence may fool you into thinking the subject is in the first person plural. Here is a simpler example:
Q: How many apples are in that cherry pie?
A1: None is in the pie. (singular)
A2: None are in the pie. (plural)
I think most people would use the plural form in this case, although strict grammarians insist that the singular is correct.
Wouldn’t “none” have the same plurality as “zero”? I would say “I have one apple”, or “I have two apples”. If I were bereft of fruit, though, I would say “I have zero apples”. I would never say “I have zero apple”. If “zero” is plural, why wouldn’t “none” be, as well?
<Spurious logic may follow> 
If three of us are asked: “How many of you know the answer?”
One: “One of us knows the answer”.
Two : “Two of us know the answer”.
None: “Three of us do not know the answer” <=> “(!3) of us know the answer” <=> “None of us know the answer”.
“It’s like, how much more black could this be? And the answer is none. None more black.”
Except in “Three of us do not know…” do is the plural verb, and know is in the infinitive, so the last part of your equation doesn’t follow the first.
“None” can carry the (closely related) meanings “not one” or “not any” – which are, of course, respectively singular and plural.
“None of them was the mysterious lone murderer.”
“None of the immigrants were eligible to become President.”
This is not correct. The distinction between none-singular and none-plural is not colloquial versus formal standard English. Both usages are standard in both conversational and edited English. What’s particularly frustrating is that you are the fourth person in the thread to offer false info, following Otto, jjimm, and CookingWithGas. These errors were in four of the first five responses to the OP.
The incomparable Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage, available from Amazon for less then twenty bucks, notes not only the propensities of some magazines to prefer one usage over the other, it also gives examples of single authors who use both depending on whatever they prefer at the moment. Not content to stop there, it also says that “nan” was used with a plural by Alfred the Great in the year 888. If you, unlike me, are capable of distinguishing an Old English singular from a plural, then knowing the year and the king might help you find the actual quote.
To be fair, I didn’t insist on that distinction after WotNot provided a good source. I did question the source a bit, but I think that’s fair.
I am capable of distinguishing an Old English singular from a plural, though I don’t have a spare $20 and I’m unwilling to read the entire corpus of works by Alfred in order to find one example. I think the weight of authority is pretty clear that “none are” is indeed correct in formal English, and that I was wrong upthread (not the first time I’ve been corrected on these boards. Not even the first time this week. Sigh). Is it so unreasonable to want to see the historical evidence? (An article from The English Journal in 1934 very kindly points out that “none” can be either singular or plural in most Indo-European languages, so that if English DID have the rule I thought it had until this morning, it would be unusual in doing so.)