[BTW: This was a really good question that was fun to think about.]

I actually don't think that "any" does necessarily have a phobia about being singular. It is, in fact, often rather steadfastly wedded to the singular in cases of "anyone," "anything," and "anybody."

It is really only merely true that "any" is (or even 'must be') used in reference to a plural set of subjects or objects. For a thought experiment, let's say we have a set of one. The assertion that you can "take any one from this set of one" is something of an odd assertion to make given the possibilities. And if there are only two in the set, then we have less of an awkwardness, but it would still be mildly odd to say "take any one of these two" given that we normally say take either in such situations.

"Take any of these two" is not grammatically incorrect, but it is poor diction. It is an unnecessary and non-standard choice of words. However, as soon as there are three or more objects in the set, then "any" starts to make perfect sense.

However, of that set of objects, we are still free to extract zero, one, or however "many" we want as the subject of a statement. And as long as the set of objects that we are talking about is sufficiently abundant, "any" can modify any of such a number of objects (or subjects) upon which we want to focus. Take, for instance, these examples:

None of you are brave enough to step forward? Not any?
I am expecting that any one of you could step forward, but I suspect you are all cowards.
We need a team of volunteers to step forward, any five of you will do.

Thus, "any" is equally at home in describing any one, any two, or any other number of things, or as Merriam-Webster puts it: "one, some, or all indiscriminately of whatever quantity," including "all — used to indicate a maximum or whole" (M-W Collegiate, 10th Ed.).

In many instances, the use of the singular or the plural means, in practical terms, exactly the same thing. Rhetorically, they can be said to have differing effects based on context. As a stylistic matter, I generally try to frame examples in the singular. Generally speaking, singular sentences sound 'crisper' and more precise. This is probably due to the inherent property of speaking singly to being with. (Ref. discussion on "a single death is a tragedy.")

Here, can assert either of the following sentences to roughly equal effect.

A tag with the word 'newbie' in it is not allowed.
—or—
Tags with the word 'newbie' in them are not allowed.

The addition of "any" in these sentences acts essentially a simple intensifier. (I added the prepositional phrases "in it" and "in them" simply to reinforce the singular or plural case being used.) But again, "any" would be equally at home in either situation:

Any tag with property X will be rejected.
—vs.—
Any tags with property X are rejected.

Here, above, I have introduced using the future, perfective tense as an alternative to the present tense. (Why not complicate things a bit?) For some reason, discussing what will happen to "a single tag" seems to work better as a matter of proscription, whereas saying what does happen to "all of the tags" works better set in present tense.

Consider the above with the following examples that include all of the internal logic spelled out (and I'll include tense differences side by side as well):

Any one tag with property X in it will be rejected.
Any one tag with property X in it is rejected.
—vs.—
Any amount of tags with property X in them will all be rejected.
Any amount of tags with property X in them are all rejected.

In truth, all of these options are saying the exact same thing, and all should serve to normalize the sound and sense of the original interrogative statement, which is perfectly serviceable:

Why is any tag with the word 'newbie' not allowed here?

Now, to shift gears here from the meta-linguistic to the literal: What is the answer to this question?

1) It is not allowed because it is not really a word. It is not in my 2004 edition of the OED and it is not in my 1996 Merriam-Webster's college dictionary either.

2) It is an imprecise designation. Does it mean new to the forum or new to the subject, or does it mean that you are kind of an dummy generally? If you are new to the forum, that doesn't need to be tagged. If you are new to the subject, how do you know what kind of question it is? If you are a dummy generally, that also does not need to be tagged. Just try your best and stop prattling about for attention or making excuses for being dumb before you have even done anything at all.

Okay. I don't know the real answer, but that is certainly a possible two-part answer, even though it does get a tad snarky in tone.

An alternative tag might be "novice" for referencing elementary or foundational issues.

By: donald remero [ Moderator ]