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

131–140 of 209 posts

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#131

Post by Metacelsus »

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…

And it gets weirder. If you have 5 or more of something, you use the neuter singular form of verbs for it.

4 books were sitting on the shelf = Stały 5 książek na półce [feminine plural verb, which makes sense]

5 books were sitting on the shelf = Stało 5 książek na półce [neuter singular???]

As someone learning Polish this is quite confusing.

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#132

Post by BossingAround »

Quekid5 wrote: post #88
BossingAround wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, I'd like three cake please, and 5 cup of coffee.

"A implies B" does not mean "B implies A".

Of course, but you're forgetting the context. In your world, OP's comment must be simply nonsense.

The sun is warm.

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#134

Post by kevincox »

gilleain wrote: post #103
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.

Yeah "on accident" jumps out as wrong to me (a Canadian) but I can appreciate this it is symmetric with "on purpose". I've never heard anyone say "by purpose".

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#135

Post by PinkSheep »

msuvakov wrote: post #82
kgeist wrote: post #68

Russian has singular, plural and paucal (reserved for small numbers: 2-4). Interestingly, zero is plural, not paucal: 1 kot "1 cat" 3 kota "3 cats" but: 5 kotov "5 cats" 0 kotov "0 cats"

Same in Serbo-Croatian: 1 mačka 2-4 mačke 5+ mačaka 0 mačaka

> Slavic family: Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Serbian, Croatian

https://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/manual/gettext.html#ind...

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#137

Post by locallost »

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…

It's the same or similar in many if not all Slavic languages. Just goes to show true internationalization in software is almost impossible because you don't know all the rules in all the languages of the world. E.g. if you treat numbers as singular like English does you will have difficulty with Polish because you were unaware it has a special case for 2-4. And then you can have a third language that handles 2-7 differently.

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#138

Post by dominicrose »

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"

"0" is the same thing as "no" and thus it is a negation of something. Why would you remove the plural from something if your intention is to negate it? If someone drinks your beers, then you have no beers because it's a negation of multiple beers. If you don't know how many beers there were then it's likely there was more than one anyway.

ps: we can also say the beers were mutiplied by 0.

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#139

Post by seszett »

thrance wrote: post #104
seszett wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> they often make blog posts in which they clarify how they want "proper french" to look like.

Anybody has the right to do that, they're mostly writers so they have an opinion on the language, but at the same time they're not linguists so they can't really be a prescriptive source. They just give their (usually reactionary) opinion.

I was just making clear that they don't make the rules. The Ministry of Education kinda does, and is often at odds with the Académie especially when it comes to the orthography reforms.

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#140

Post by Archelaos »

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?

Post reply on HN