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

111–120 of 209 posts

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#111

Post by TeMPOraL »

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…

> The moment you use a fraction, the assumption is that you would need to count all I guess, so it’s treated as individual objects.

I always explained it to myself that, when you use a fraction, you're focusing on that one incomplete object, also calling more attention to the individuality of objects in the set. So in case of say, "100.5 książki", I like to imagine shoving ~95 books into the box very quickly, then slowing down for the last 6 books, counting them off one by one, to know exactly when to stop and saw the 106th book in half.

IDK what the official justification is.

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#112

Post by xnorswap »

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.

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".

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#113

Post by powerhugs »

Incorrectly top voted answers. "zeroes" is the plural form. The use of zero in "zero 3s" is not the number 0 but an adjective, synonym to "no" in that context.

The correct answer is the third one: https://ell.stackexchange.com/a/352496

I guess this is one of the reasons for the failing popularity of the Stack Exchange sites, simply voted best answers that are incorrect.

Similar to how you will find 30 incorrect upvoted seemingly correct-but-actually-incorrect answers to many reddit questions with the correct answer hidden deep down in the comments with no karma.

Similar how HN is turning out lately, too.

Related: https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/are-llms-making-stackover...

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#114

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

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 think the reason that "accident" is confusing is because of "I did it on purpose". As a fellow British English speaker, I would never say "by purpose!". By and large, I think that US English tends to be more logical.

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#115

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

twnettytwo wrote: post #108
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.

> 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.

"I left it at home" is common, but doesn't have the exact same meaning. Tbh, I don't think there really is a way to say that succinctly in British English—we would probably say "I left it at home", "I forgot to bring it", or—if the full meaning is strictly necessary—"I forgot it, it's at home".

Really, "I forgot it at home" is short for "I forgot to bring it; I left it at home".

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#116

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

powerhugs wrote: post #113

Incorrectly top voted answers. "zeroes" is the plural form. The use of zero in "zero 3s" is not the number 0 but an adjective, synonym to "no" in that context. The correct answer is the third one: https://ell.stackexchange.com/a/352496 I guess this is one of the reasons for the failing popularity of the Stack Exchange sites, simply voted best answers that are incorrect. Similar to how you will find 30 incorrect upvot…

I think you're misunderstanding the question — possibly for comedic effect (?), it's hard to tell.

"zeroes" is the plural form of the noun "zero", yes. But the question is about using the form "zero" as an adjective and how that should affect the plurality of the noun it applies to: "zero book(s)", for example.

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#117

Post by kmm »

powerhugs wrote: post #113

Incorrectly top voted answers. "zeroes" is the plural form. The use of zero in "zero 3s" is not the number 0 but an adjective, synonym to "no" in that context. The correct answer is the third one: https://ell.stackexchange.com/a/352496 I guess this is one of the reasons for the failing popularity of the Stack Exchange sites, simply voted best answers that are incorrect. Similar to how you will find 30 incorrect upvot…

The body of the question makes it abundantly clear what the OP is asking, which has nothing to do with the plural form of the noun "zero". You could suggest an improvement to the title, but answering "zeroes" and pretending it's the only correct answer is being deliberately obtuse.

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#118

Post by powerhugs »

kmm wrote: post #117
powerhugs wrote: post #113

Incorrectly top voted answers. "zeroes" is the plural form. The use of zero in "zero 3s" is not the number 0 but an adjective, synonym to "no" in that context. The correct answer is the third one: https://ell.stackexchange.com/a/352496 I guess this is one of the reasons for the failing popularity of the Stack Exchange sites, simply voted best answers that are incorrect. Similar to how you will find 30 incorrect upvot…

The body of the question makes it abundantly clear what the OP is asking, which has nothing to do with the plural form of the noun "zero". You could suggest an improvement to the title, but answering "zeroes" and pretending it's the only correct answer is being deliberately obtuse.

Huh? I thought I was being detailed.

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#119

Post by powerhugs »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #116
powerhugs wrote: post #113

Incorrectly top voted answers. "zeroes" is the plural form. The use of zero in "zero 3s" is not the number 0 but an adjective, synonym to "no" in that context. The correct answer is the third one: https://ell.stackexchange.com/a/352496 I guess this is one of the reasons for the failing popularity of the Stack Exchange sites, simply voted best answers that are incorrect. Similar to how you will find 30 incorrect upvot…

I think you're misunderstanding the question — possibly for comedic effect (?), it's hard to tell. "zeroes" is the plural form of the noun "zero", yes. But the question is about using the form "zero" as an adjective and how that should affect the plurality of the noun it applies to: "zero book(s)", for example.

I am not trying to be funny. It seems to me that you are misunderstanding the usage of the word zero in this context, as in absence of any. Synonymous to "no", as in "no threes".

It is not about the number 0.

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#120

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

powerhugs wrote: post #119
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're misunderstanding the question — possibly for comedic effect (?), it's hard to tell. "zeroes" is the plural form of the noun "zero", yes. But the question is about using the form "zero" as an adjective and how that should affect the plurality of the noun it applies to: "zero book(s)", for example.

I am not trying to be funny. It seems to me that you are misunderstanding the usage of the word zero in this context, as in absence of any. Synonymous to "no", as in "no threes". It is not about the number 0.

OK, if you think I'm the one misunderstanding the question, can you explain how?

The example in the question is:

> For example, if we choose two 2s, zero 3s, and one 5

That's talking about "zero 3s", not "three zeroes".

Post reply on HN