The Stack Exchange post explores why "zero" takes the plural form of a noun. It concludes that "zero" functions similarly to other quantifiers like "two," "few," and "many," which inherently refer to pluralities. While "one" signifies a single item, "zero" indicates the absence of any items, conceptually similar to having multiple absences or a group of nothing. This aligns with how other languages treat zero, and using the singular with zero can create ambiguity, especially in contexts discussing countable nouns where "one" is a possibility. Essentially, "zero" grammatically behaves like a plural quantifier because it describes the absence of a quantity greater than one.
The Stack Exchange post entitled "Why is zero plural? (2024)" delves into the grammatical quandary of why the numeral zero, representing the absence of a quantity, typically takes a plural verb form in English. The author initiates the inquiry by observing the common usage of plural verb agreement with zero, as exemplified in phrases like "zero degrees" or "zero cookies." This practice seems counterintuitive, given that zero signifies nothingness, and singular nouns typically align with singular verbs.
The post then explores several potential explanations for this linguistic convention. One hypothesis posits that zero functions grammatically similarly to other numbers greater than one, all of which necessitate plural verb agreement. This argument suggests that the plural form is used for consistency across numerical quantifiers, irrespective of the actual quantity represented.
Another proposed rationale centers on the concept of implied plurality. The argument here is that even when zero explicitly denotes an absence, it implicitly refers to a potential plurality of items that could exist but currently do not. For instance, "zero apples" might be interpreted as implying a set of apples, albeit a set with zero members. Thus, the plural verb agreement acknowledges the potential for a plural entity.
Furthermore, the post touches upon the distinction between grammatical number and the actual quantity being discussed. It emphasizes that grammatical number is a linguistic construct that doesn't always perfectly map onto mathematical concepts. Consequently, while zero mathematically represents nothingness, its grammatical function may align with plural constructions due to the conventions of the English language.
In essence, the post seeks to illuminate the reasons behind the seemingly paradoxical use of plural verb agreement with the numeral zero, considering various linguistic and conceptual factors that contribute to this grammatical peculiarity. It leaves the reader to ponder the nuances of language and the sometimes arbitrary nature of grammatical rules.
Summary of Comments ( 155 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42787651
Hacker News users discuss the seemingly illogical pluralization of "zero." Some argue that "zero" functions as a placeholder for a plural noun, similar to other quantifiers like "many" or "few." Others suggest that its plural form stems from its representation of a set containing no elements, which conceptually could contain multiple (zero) elements. The notion that zero apples is one set of apples, while grammatically plural, was also raised. The prevalent feeling is that the pluralization is more a quirk of language evolution than strict logical adherence, echoing the original Stack Exchange post's accepted answer. Some users pointed to different conventions in other languages, highlighting the English language's idiosyncrasies. A few comments humorously question the entire premise, wondering why such a seemingly trivial matter warrants discussion.
The Hacker News post titled "Why is zero plural? (2024)" linking to an English Language Learners Stack Exchange discussion has several comments discussing the plurality of zero.
One of the most compelling lines of discussion revolves around the idea that zero isn't inherently plural or singular, but rather takes on the plurality of the noun it modifies. Commenters point out that zero functions as a quantifier, similar to other numbers. They argue that saying "zero apple" sounds unnatural not because zero is plural, but because the conventional quantifier for a single, absent item is "no" or "one." Therefore, we say "no apples" or "one apple," not "zero apples." However, in cases where plurality is already implied or established, zero smoothly fits into the plural context. Examples like "zero degrees Celsius" and mathematical operations like "one minus one equals zero" are cited as instances where zero naturally adopts the plural form.
Another commenter adds to this by suggesting zero represents an empty set, and sets are inherently treated as plural. This aligns with the idea of zero inheriting plurality from the noun it quantifies, as an empty set of something takes the plural form of that something.
Further discussion touches on the historical and linguistic evolution of zero. One comment mentions that while zero's usage as a plural quantifier is common in modern English, historical texts sometimes used "none" in situations where we would now use "zero." This points to a possible shift in language usage over time.
The pragmatic aspect of communication also enters the conversation. A commenter explains that choosing between singular or plural forms often depends on the context and the intended meaning. While "zero error" might be grammatically correct, "zero errors" is more commonly used, likely because it implies a desired state of no errors, thus conceptually aligning with a plural form.
Finally, a few comments inject some humor and less serious observations, with one noting the occasional awkwardness of sentences like "zero times" appearing in user interfaces and another playfully suggesting "zeroes" as a possible plural form, though acknowledging its uncommon usage.