Because zero is not singular . In the context of English grammar, "plural" simply means "not singular."
Except...
> `1.0` books (?) – Martin Ba Commented May 22, 2024 at 13:3
:)
Why is zero plural? (2024)
181–190 of 209 posts
Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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 -…
> English requires the use of an article with singular nouns, because the question of "which X" is important. Well, that obviously can't be true, or other languages would have the same requirement.
I guess I should have made that say "important to English."
Languages definitely impose "models" for various things and those are certainly different amongst each language.
Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)
#183There is 0.9 (repeating) apple.
edit:
Math is very precise, and has very obvious correct and incorrect answers. Language much less so. So when we have a question like this, it FEELS like there should be an obvious and precise answer because we are talking about math, BUT we are using language to talk about math, so we are going back to an imprecise realm; which may feel confusing and wrong.
This is also the effect behind the engagement bait word problems and order of operations problems you see on social media.
Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)
#184The 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 was thinking of this too, oddly, also examples around books. I vaguely feel like “no book” could also be parsed as… not one book, maybe? Like we’re saying there isn’t even one book on the subject. Maybe? I dunno. The scenario that popped into my head was: what if you had a bookshop, where the shopkeeper would sometimes pick out books for you. If they said “I have no books for you today,” I’d imagine that they just…
no book -> not a book
Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Chinese has gotten by for thousands of years without any plurals at all. Chinese has plurals; 们 has no other use.
Counting words and 们 aren't the same, as they aren't declensions. You add on the syllable rather than actually changing the syllable of the noun itself. Granted, that's still different from saying that Mandarin doesn't have a concept of plural, but I think the underlying point- no conjugation or declension- is very different from the other languages being discussed.
To be more accurate, 们 isn't a plural marker more because of the fact that it's not productive[1], rather than the fact that Chinese doesn't have declension. If 们 were able to be suffixed to any noun to make it plural, then you could consider it to be a plural marker, even though the noun isn't technically declined. That's not the case anyway though, since 们 can only be used with a closed set of pronouns or in a limited way to refer to groups represented by the noun its attached to (in this sense it's more of a metonymic[2] marker rather than a plural marker). For example, 白宮们 can be used to translate "the White House" when it refers to the President and his administration, and cannot be used to mean "white houses".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_(linguistics) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy
Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)
#186Russian 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"
Also 101 becomes singular again, as on "101 kot". There are websites that capture these rules for all common languages, to assist localization and translators. https://docs.translatehouse.org/projects/localization-guide/... English is nplurals=2; plural=(n != 1); Russian is much more complex: nplurals=3; plural=(n%10==1 && n%100!=11 ? 0 : n%10>=2 && n%10 =20) ? 1 : 2);
English has the same issue with ordinals. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th ... then back to 101st, 102nd.
Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counting words and 们 aren't the same, as they aren't declensions. You add on the syllable rather than actually changing the syllable of the noun itself. Granted, that's still different from saying that Mandarin doesn't have a concept of plural, but I think the underlying point- no conjugation or declension- is very different from the other languages being discussed.
To be more accurate, 们 isn't a plural marker more because of the fact that it's not productive[1], rather than the fact that Chinese doesn't have declension. If 们 were able to be suffixed to any noun to make it plural, then you could consider it to be a plural marker, even though the noun isn't technically declined. That's not the case anyway though, since 们 can only be used with a closed set of pronouns or in a limi…
Yeah, that was what I meant by including "counting words" which I now remember are better known as measure words or classifiers.
Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would it mean for x to be negative, if x is how many of something you have?
"Il fait -2 degrés ce matin".
Sure, the temperature can be negative, but I'd have trouble understanding that as "I have -2 degrees" (and, if I'm understanding the French correctly, that's not what it means even literally).
Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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
In my example, the "them" isn't referring to the recipients of the letters. It's referring to the letters themselves.
Mallory: "The mill received a series of letters. Those letters are evidence. Now, we're not leaving here until I find out who wrote those letters. Alice, did you write them? Bob, did you?"
Carol: "I wrote them."
Re: Why is zero plural? (2024)
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counting words and 们 aren't the same, as they aren't declensions. You add on the syllable rather than actually changing the syllable of the noun itself. Granted, that's still different from saying that Mandarin doesn't have a concept of plural, but I think the underlying point- no conjugation or declension- is very different from the other languages being discussed.
To be more accurate, 们 isn't a plural marker more because of the fact that it's not productive[1], rather than the fact that Chinese doesn't have declension. If 们 were able to be suffixed to any noun to make it plural, then you could consider it to be a plural marker, even though the noun isn't technically declined. That's not the case anyway though, since 们 can only be used with a closed set of pronouns or in a limi…
It is productive. It can't pluralize anything, but it can pluralize anything that refers to people and it is actively used in novel ways. I've seen someone refer to 美国的妈妈们; metonymy is not involved there. It just means "American mothers", as distinct from a hypothetical 美国的妈妈 "America's mother".
However, the other angle on this is that Mandarin pronouns have singular and plural forms (plurals using 们), and the use of the correct form is obligatory, which suffices to show that plurality exists in the language. Although it isn't the case that 们 is unproductive, even if it was unproductive that still wouldn't show that the language has no plurals.
> in this sense it's more of a metonymic marker rather than a plural marker). For example, 白宮们 can be used to translate "the White House" when it refers to the President and his administration, and cannot be used to mean "white houses"
I should note that this argument doesn't entirely hang together. You can make "the White House" explicitly plural in English by giving it a plural verb:
https://us.iasservices.org.uk/bidens-immigration-bill-propos...
> The White House have announced a comprehensive immigration reform proposal in a bill that has been sent to congress.
How would you say that differs from 白宫们? Does it refer to multiple houses?