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

151–160 of 209 posts

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#151

Post by MadcapJake »

tuvang wrote: post #87

I figured it is because most things in nature exist in multitudes, so there being 0 indicates an absence of multitude. For example: There are trees in this field. There are 0 trees in this field. Singular is the special case, similar to square x rectangle relation.

This matches my intuition. Zero is synonymous with "the absence of any X".

The singular equivalent would be perhaps "non-" or "-less".

Hot take: zero is a math concept and math deals with multitudes only (even under one, you're dealing with a multitude of parts). The actual irregularity is the usage of singular noun form in a math context.

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#152

Post by alterom »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #111
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 sl…

Interesting.

It's the opposite in Russian — it'd be "100½ książek" there (сто c половиной книжек), even though it's "½ książki" (половина книжки).

"½ książek" (половина книжек) is also valid, and it means "half of (all the) books".

But in "100½", it's the whole number that determines the ending (i.e. case) of the word.

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#153

Post by Xmd5a »

whycome wrote: post #50
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"

French, which treats zero as a singular I believe has a weird way of saying "no one" Personne on its own means ''no one'', but une personne means a person.

And "rien" (nothing) used to mean something (via latin "res")

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#154

Post by Tainnor »

bkazez wrote: post #129
Tainnor wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, formally "personne" has to be used with the "ne" negation in order to mean 'nobody', such as "personne ne l'a vu", which makes a certain kind of sense ('a person hasn't seen it' -> nobody has seen it). But French people usually drop "ne" in spoken language.

“Sans personne” means “without anyone” and has no “ne”.

Ok, but it literally means "without person", so is equally unsuprising.

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#155

Post by GTP »

' “I have no legs” means that I have 0 legs (as opposed to 1 leg or 2 legs), while “I have no leg” means that I have not any leg (i.e., I do not have any leg) ' made me laugh :D

Edit: To be honest, I don't see the difference between "I have 0 legs" and "I do not have any leg", can someone explain?

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#156

Post by alterom »

Metacelsus wrote: post #131
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.

You have an error there (bad copy-paste?).

Should be "Stały 4 książki na półce".

Anyway, to make sense of the second one: treat "5 książek" as "5 of books", or "a 5-set of books"

— Four books were sitting on a shelf ("books" are plural, feminine)

— A five-set of books was sitting on a shelf ("five-set" is singular, neutral)

Now, why 5 becomes a set and 4 doesn't is not something I have a clue about.

But hope it helps grok how it affects the form of the noun being enumerated :)

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#157

Post by alterom »

inopinatus wrote: post #19
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"

I use Xero's books.

Be careful. That could be a violation of the DMCA, unless you do that one chapter at a time.

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#158

Post by RiverCrochet »

dominicrose wrote: post #138
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.

"0 x" is only valid if x is a countable noun.

"No x" is valid for any noun.

Liquids are an example of non-countable nouns - "I have no water" but "I have zero oranges."

Some thoughts:

- English requires the use of an article with singular nouns, because the question of "which X" is important.

- This question is impossible for plural nouns (no "which X" when X is 2 or more), and where the noun doesn't actually exist - because it's meant as a type or because it physically doesn't exist.

- So these situations require no article to be used.

- English is so flexible that a phrase like "two oranges" can be "singularized" and therefore a sentence like this is possible: "Take the two oranges and put them here." What's implied and meant here is "1 group of two oranges" so it's still consistent.

- That's all brought up because it's another place in the language where zero and plural obey the same logic.

Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)

#160

Post by Tainnor »

axegon_ wrote: post #107
pmontra wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Linguistically, Spanish and French are Western Romance languages and technically should be closer to each other than Spanish and Italian. However, French also underwent certain significant changes (possibly due to Germanic and/or Celtic influence) that most other Romance languages didn't, hence why it seems more "foreign". But there are a lot of common things between French and Spanish that Italian doesn't share (e.g. the way plurals are formed with "s", or particular sound changes, like adding "e" in front of certain consonant clusters, c.f. Spanish "estrella", French "étoile", but Italian "stella")

> But as far as grammar, they seem to be almost identical.

Apart from the different plurals, probably the biggest difference to me seems to be that Spanish has three different past tenses, including indefinido, while the corresponding tenses in Italian and French (passato remoto / passé simple) have completely fallen out of use except of highly formal contexts (or, in the case of Italian, certain Southern dialects). Instead you'd just use the perfect.

Post reply on HN