MHB Why is zero both singular and plural?

[Petrus]

Hello MHB,
I Was woundering WHY is zero in plural? Exemple "I got zero cats". What do you think?

Regards,
$$|\pi\rangle$$

 

[alyafey22]

I am no expert but I would say that the original statement is "I got zero number of cats" . Someone with experience in linguistics might help ,though.

 

[Ackbach]

Hello MHB,
I Was woundering WHY is zero in plural? Exemple "I got zero cats". What do you think?

Regards,
$$|\pi\rangle$$

If you are trying to express the fact that you do not have any cats, then the correct English would be "I have zero cats", or even better: "I have no cats". Alternatively, you could use the singular here and say, "I have no cat." It is incorrect to say "I got zero cat", because cats are denumerable. If you say, "I got zero cats", then you are talking about a hypothetical acquisition of cats, in which you did not succeed. It is incorrect to say "I got zero cats" if you really mean that you do not presently have any cats. You will often hear "I've got no cats". That is not quite as correct as some other suggestions, but it is colloquial.

With language, most of the time, the answer to why anything is the way it is is simply convention. Why is English spelling the mess that it is? Convention. Why are there so many exceptions to rules in English? Convention.

Curiously, in Latin, the adjective 'nullus/nulla/nullum', which means 'no', declines to follow the noun it modifies in gender, number, and case. So, in Latin, the sentence "I have no cats" would read "Nullae feles habeo". Or "I have no cat" would read "Nulla felis habeo". There is no 'zero' in Latin, so I can't show you how that (doesn't) work.

 

[Petrus]

If you are trying to express the fact that you do not have any cats, then the correct English would be "I have zero cats", or even better: "I have no cats". Alternatively, you could use the singular here and say, "I have no cat." It is incorrect to say "I got zero cat", because cats are denumerable. If you say, "I got zero cats", then you are talking about a hypothetical acquisition of cats, in which you did not succeed. It is incorrect to say "I got zero cats" if you really mean that you do not presently have any cats. You will often hear "I've got no cats". That is not quite as correct as some other suggestions, but it is colloquial.

With language, most of the time, the answer to why anything is the way it is is simply convention. Why is English spelling the mess that it is? Convention. Why are there so many exceptions to rules in English? Convention.

Curiously, in Latin, the adjective 'nullus/nulla/nullum', which means 'no', declines to follow the noun it modifies in gender, number, and case. So, in Latin, the sentence "I have no cats" would read "Nullae feles habeo". Or "I have no cat" would read "Nulla felis habeo". There is no 'zero' in Latin, so I can't show you how that (doesn't) work.

Thanks! Yep I mean "I have zero cats" i have no clue WHY i typed "I got zero cats"

Regards,
$$|\pi\rangle$$

 

[MarkFL]

Thanks! Yep I mean "I have zero cats" i have no clue WHY i typed "I got zero cats"

Regards,
$$|\pi\rangle$$

Petrus, I hear native English speakers make that same mistake quite often. :D

 

[DreamWeaver]

The simple answer is that "zero" is both singular and plural, depending upon how you qualify it... For example, although not standard English, if you were to say "I have zero cats", then you've made zero plural by pluralising "cat" into "cats". On the other hand, if you were to say "I've drunk all the beer, and now I have zero left", then this zero could be taken as singular or plural, depending upon just how many beers you drank... (Devil)

Incidentally, if you add one zero to another, do you get (a) an orgi, (b) a whole lot of nothing, or (c) as confused as I am...?

(Hug)