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

101–110 of 209 posts

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#101

Post by Terr_ »

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?

I'd say steering wheels are "normally capped at 1"... although I recall one distinct occasion where I expected two steering wheels, in a training car for new drivers. Alas, it seemed the local school-district could only afford a car with a second brake-pedal for the instructor, which did very little to help my anxieties.

So my first time behind the (singular) wheel and they told me to pull onto a major street next to the school, without even doing circles in a parking lot or anything. I guess they just expected most students had already done some illicit/private driving? Anywho, it was more stressful than any rollercoaster and I had shaky legs when my turn was finally over.

(Then I put an onion on my belt, as was the style of the time...)

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#102

Post by pmontra »

axegon_ wrote: post #99

I am not sure that it's a function of English language per se. I speak several language and it's the same story with all of them and one of those languages is Slavic so it comes from a very different root. That said, Greece is a rock throw away and I think the ancient Greek mathematicians(Pythagoras primarily) might have something to do with it: The Egyptians were the first known to use symbols to represents parts of…

In Italy we would translate "two 2s, zero 3s, and one 5" as "due 2, zero 3 e un 5". No plurals for the numbers. By the way "un" is the "a" article and not the "uno" number. Using the number would sound more than strange.

Languages are just what they settled down to be, until they change little by little every day.

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#103

Post by gilleain »

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.

Incidentally i see 'on accident' more from Americans. In British English we tend to use 'by', so 'on' sounds a little strange but I've grown to like it recently.

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#104

Post by thrance »

seszett wrote: post #96
thrance wrote: post #3

In French, the official rule from our (way too expensive) Académie Française is, that it's plural if you have at least x of it, where |x|≥2.

The Académie française does not edict official rules. Nobody does, there is no official governing authority for the French language but the ministry of Education is the main reference in France. Their rules are generally used for official documents, and since they decide what gets taught to children that's what becomes the normal language when the children become adults. Also, it costs about 1 million euros per year[…

Last I heard it was closer to 5 millions, which regardless of the amount goes directly into the pockets of some reactionary old dudes.

They don't make a rule book, but they often make blog posts in which they clarify how they want "proper french" to look like.

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#105

Post by another-dave »

sedatk wrote: post #63
OJFord wrote: post #44

More interesting is to compare languages. Other than native English, I only know Hindi (plural zero) and French (singular zero). I wonder what and why the divide is, perhaps especially when among these three at least I believe zero has a common conceptual origin in al-Khvārizmī (post Roman).

In Turkish, numbers don’t affect plurality: 0 apple, 1 apple, 2 apple. But you still say “I ate all the apples” in plural.

Irish is the same — you count with the singular noun, but use plural nouns elsewhere

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#106

Post by sitharus »

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.

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.

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#107

Post by axegon_ »

pmontra wrote: post #102
axegon_ wrote: post #99

I am not sure that it's a function of English language per se. I speak several language and it's the same story with all of them and one of those languages is Slavic so it comes from a very different root. That said, Greece is a rock throw away and I think the ancient Greek mathematicians(Pythagoras primarily) might have something to do with it: The Egyptians were the first known to use symbols to represents parts of…

In Italy we would translate "two 2s, zero 3s, and one 5" as "due 2, zero 3 e un 5". No plurals for the numbers. By the way "un" is the "a" article and not the "uno" number. Using the number would sound more than strange. Languages are just what they settled down to be, until they change little by little every day.

I speak Spanish, but it's a different story there: "dos doses, zero treses y un cinco". Numbers can have plurals, which from what I understand is not the case in Italian. Weird cause the languages are very similar in general - I can somewhat easily understand Italian, particularly reading. Listening - not so much. But as far as grammar, they seem to be almost identical. Same with French grammar though Spanish has the equivalent of the English present continuous tense and French does not(also worth mentioning that I don't speak French either, that's what my mum has told me).

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#108

Post by twnettytwo »

sitharus wrote: post #106
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.

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.

> I forgot it at home

As a non-native speaker, I find the sentence equally disconcerting, but it leaves me wondering what one would use to say something to that effect.

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#109

Post by cassianoleal »

In Portuguese, where -2 
    * 0 thing
    * 0.5 thing
    * -1.3 thing
    * 1.99999 thing
    * -2 things
    * etc
This is true at least in Brazil though I'm fairly certain it's shared grammar with the descendants of the European barbarians who invaded it in the 1500s.

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#110

Post by [deleted] »

cassianoleal wrote: post #109

In Portuguese, where -2 * 0 thing * 0.5 thing * -1.3 thing * 1.99999 thing * -2 things * etc This is true at least in Brazil though I'm fairly certain it's shared grammar with the descendants of the European barbarians who invaded it in the 1500s.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN