Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why is zero plural? (2024)

ell.stackexchange.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 209 posts

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#141

Post by d1sxeyes »

kolinko wrote: post #98

Fun fact - in Polish we have separate forms for 1 (singular), 2-4 (plural but nit many) and everything else. Zero is in “everything else” 0 książek 0.5 książki 1 książka 2,3,4 książki 2.5 książki 5 and above książek 5.5 (any other fraction) książki >100 and a fraction - depends Singular is for one. The first plural is for things kind of treated as individual objects. The second plural is for things that are treated a…

Not certain about Polish any more (it’s 15 years or so since I studied) but certainly Russian uses the genitive singular after numbers ending in 2, 3, and 4 (e.g. 02, 23, 34, but not the “teens”) and genitive plural for numbers ending in 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0). The endings here look the same.

Does Polish also use the same form for 20 as for 0 (i.e. 20 książek)? As I remember it does. If I remember correctly, Polish also differs from Russian in that it only uses the singular for 1, not for all numbers ending in 1 (except 11).

(Note for linguists, it’s not actually quite the genitive, but it’s close enough not to warrant its own case)

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#142

Post by schwartzworld »

zelos wrote: post #92
Terr_ wrote: post #14

I think it extends from whatever rules govern the much-more-influential word "No", particularly for items which aren't normally capped at 1. Notice how these are all plural , and in each case "no" could be substituted with "zero": * "My shelf contains no books." * "Snails have no legs." * "What if there were no stars in the sky?" You can't simply replace those examples with a singular noun: You're either forced to re…

"My car has no steering wheel", though, so isn't it related to how many you'd expect?

Exactly right. Op uses “snails have no legs” because most things have 2+ legs or none. But snails do have one foot. If there was a snail without a foot, you’d say “this one has no foot”

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#143

Post by arijun »

Archelaos wrote: post #140
ks2048 wrote: post #15

The answer says zero is treated as "plural" because we say "0 books". Interestingly, we can say either: 1. "There are no books on this subject" 2. "There is no book on this subject"

Question from someone whose native language is not English. I often come across sentences that combine "There is no" with a plural direct object, such as: "There is no books on this subject" Is this also correct English?

No, you still need subject-verb agreement. Either “there are no books,” or the less common “there is no book.”

You might see the latter in the case of a definite subject: “Pass me the book on the subject.” “There is no book on the subject.”

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#144

Post by sbelskie »

Archelaos wrote: post #140
ks2048 wrote: post #15

The answer says zero is treated as "plural" because we say "0 books". Interestingly, we can say either: 1. "There are no books on this subject" 2. "There is no book on this subject"

Question from someone whose native language is not English. I often come across sentences that combine "There is no" with a plural direct object, such as: "There is no books on this subject" Is this also correct English?

Not in standard American English to the best of my knowledge, but it’s not impossible some dialects use this construction.

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#145

Post by Karellen »

xnorswap wrote: post #112
sitharus wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer is that’s just the way English is. Exactly 1 is singular, everything else is plural (mostly). “On accident” is American English, as a British English speaker I’d consider it a grammatical mistake. The same goes with “I forgot it at home” and similar constructs. However they’re correct American English.

There are a few things like this which really sound weird to a British ear. Another example is the use of "Write" in the sentence, "I wrote them". This is completely wrong to the British ear, which would be "I wrote to them".

"I wrote them" doesn't sound completely wrong to a British ear - it just gets misunderstood! I thought it sounded like exactly the correct way to say "I wrote the letters", until I got to the last couple of words in your post and had to reinterpret it. :-)

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#146

Post by philipwhiuk »

tsimionescu wrote: post #59
mayd wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This example does sound wrong to a native English speaker. It contains a subjunctive mood construct and the correct version would be: "What if there were no stars in the sky?"

"What if there were no star in the sky?" also works even if you want to use the subjunctive. Note that not all native speakers of English use or prefer this type of construction. Also, this use of "were" instead of "was" is sometimes now called irrealis and considered separate from the subjunctive (which is then used to refer only to constructions like "it's important that you be here early tomorrow").

It may found in usage, but then so is "liek"..

At the end of the day there is accepted grammar and there is actual usage.

If you ask people for the accepted grammar they will give you something most people accept. Which is not "What if there were no star in the sky?"

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#147

Post by philipwhiuk »

eesmith wrote: post #91
Terr_ wrote: post #14

I think it extends from whatever rules govern the much-more-influential word "No", particularly for items which aren't normally capped at 1. Notice how these are all plural , and in each case "no" could be substituted with "zero": * "My shelf contains no books." * "Snails have no legs." * "What if there were no stars in the sky?" You can't simply replace those examples with a singular noun: You're either forced to re…

You are using examples which are typically plural. Consider instead these singular forms: "My shelf contains no Elf-on-a-Shelf" / "My shelf contains no elephant" / "My shelf contains no Hemingway book." / "My shelf contains no book by Hemingway." (For an example of the third: "Don't look there for a copy of 'The Old Man and the Sea'? I detest Hemingway, and my shelf contains no Hemingway book." In this case, 'no' mea…

The 'correct' English is "no books by Hemmingway"

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#148

Post by philipwhiuk »

Karellen wrote: post #145
xnorswap wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a few things like this which really sound weird to a British ear. Another example is the use of "Write" in the sentence, "I wrote them". This is completely wrong to the British ear, which would be "I wrote to them".

"I wrote them" doesn't sound completely wrong to a British ear - it just gets misunderstood! I thought it sounded like exactly the correct way to say "I wrote the letters", until I got to the last couple of words in your post and had to reinterpret it. :-)

It sounds wrong to this British ear.

"There was a problem at the mill so I wrote them" - this sounds wrong

"The mill workers were complaining so I wrote them a letter" - this is fine

"The mill workers were complaining so I wrote to them" - this is also fine

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#149

Post by xnorswap »

Karellen wrote: post #145
xnorswap wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a few things like this which really sound weird to a British ear. Another example is the use of "Write" in the sentence, "I wrote them". This is completely wrong to the British ear, which would be "I wrote to them".

"I wrote them" doesn't sound completely wrong to a British ear - it just gets misunderstood! I thought it sounded like exactly the correct way to say "I wrote the letters", until I got to the last couple of words in your post and had to reinterpret it. :-)

Quite, I struggled to formulate the example because indeed reading it the interpretation is that "them" could mean letters, and so doesn't sound completely as wrong as it does in the context of a person.

A better example would have been "I wrote Alice last week". Correct US English, utterly grating to British English. ( Technically still might not grate if your brain jumps to Alice being a Poem or other work of art! )

Because in British English we write letters, we don't write people. I don't know the term for it, it's not transitive vs intransitive, it's the verb object having a different restriction.

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#150

Post by helboi4 »

bilekas wrote: post #95

I actually didn't know this so it's new to me but maybe I'm missing the nuances of English.. There is only 1 quantity in 0.. Or inversely there is a singular ABSENSE of a quantity. So how it's explained in the answer doesn't really explain it for me. Edit: I also have a problem understanding "On accident" when for me it's surely "By accident". English is strange.

Firstly, that is your interpretation of zero. It is also an abscence of all the possible values that it could be, which is a plural concept.

Secondly, yeah American English is moronic and full of barstadised phrases. In the UK, we always say "by accident". We also say "I couldn't care less" not "I could care less", the American version which is illogical. If the meaning is to be "I care the minimum amount possible", then only "I couldn't care less" makes sense. The American version implies that you actually care a significant amount.

Post reply on HN