Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
I don't think there's a "logical" reason beyond common usage. It's the same with fractions. On highway signs, for example:
Exit 232 - 2 miles
Exit 232 - 1 1/2 miles
Exit 232 - 1 mile
Exit 232 - 1/2 mile
which all seem to make sense. But when the distance is given as a decimal in speech, one would say "It's about 0.5 miles (plural) to Exit 232." And when spoken as a fraction, one would say "It's about a half mile to Exit 232." But I've also heard "It's about 1.0 miles to Exit 232," as if the inclusion of a tenths place in the information requires the plural form.
Not logical at all. Just common usage.
Welcome.
I fear the answer to why zero is followed by a plural noun and verb is merely a convention of English. It is similar to the use of decimals and units (e.g. 0.5 teaspoons; 1.5 teaspoons; 2.5 teaspoons) but not necessarily for fractions (e.g. one-half teaspoon; one-and-one-half teaspoons; two-and-one-half teaspoons). For fractions, we use singular forms for fractions less than one.
I have noticed some variation on the number of both decimals and fractions.
The use of singular or plural with no, however, allows for more flexibility. It can very much vary by nuance:
There was no taxi to be found.
There were no taxis to be found.
[Edit: added the following]
Sorry. Our responses crossed. I started mine, then got called away, clicked it before I realized there already was an outstanding response from Heimhenge.
Perhaps it's because there's nothing that logically says any other number than one is singular…?
In the list as described, only “there is one item†is singular, so it is exceptional - everything else takes the plural. Zero doesn't actually have any amount, so it might just as well be “plural†as “singularâ€.
jock123 said:
Perhaps it's because there's nothing that logically says any other number than one is singular…?
In the list as described, only “there is one item†is singular, so it is exceptional – everything else takes the plural. Zero doesn't actually have any amount, so it might just as well be “plural†as “singularâ€.
You might be on to something there. When we say "There were zero responses to my email." we are holding out the possibility (or expectation) that there could have been multiple respondents. Still, one could also say "There was zero response to my email." and be perfectly correct grammatically.
Yes, but with "zero response" the noun is uncountable, not countable. That's a different situation; the meaning has changed.
Countable nouns (in case you're not already familiar with the concept) come in discrete units, ie integers: There are three pebbles in my hand, twelve ants on the table, six children in my house. No one actually wants 2.4 children, though we sometimes say it in jest. Uncountable nouns, by contrast, are not counted but measured: nine cups of water, nine tons of earth, nine degrees of frost. Most uncountable nouns often have a countable meaning, too, but it's a different meaning.
If you're not sure you buy that countable and uncountable usages of the same word imply different meanings, consider the word "justice". In normal usage "justice" is uncountable; you can have a little bit of justice, a lot of justice, perfect justice or no justice at all. But if you try to use the word as a countable noun—if you say you see nine justices—then you're suddenly talking not about a moral quality but about persons of a certain profession.
A similar thing happens with a word like "butter". Usually "butter" is uncountable—I have have a tablespoon of butter, or a quarter cup of butter—but if a waitress brings me nine butters we're clearly talking about countable objects, the little pats I can try to spread on my rolls, if they're not too hard from the refrigerator. That's the sense in which "responses" (countable) turns into "response" (uncountable). The two meanings are related, of course, just not the same.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)