Why is zero plural?
(eg. I have zero items on my agenda.)
You can't multiply by zero and obtain any result other than zero, it's still just zero.
Is that a proper usage of the word "zero"?
We have no items.
We have a zero count.
Yes, we have no bananas
we have no bananas today!
Taking a wild guess.....
A single object is singular.
A plural object is non-singular.
Zero, under this definition, will be a plural quantity.
I would assume the grammatical constructs for "zero", "one", and "more than one" evolved long before we actually had numbers to express those ideas. Then, when we invented numbers, we simply inserted the numbers into the existing constructs.
Here's another one you might not have noticed.
It's easy to say "there are fourteen and two-thirds apples in that basket", right? Sounds quite natural.
Now, replace 14 2/3 with 1 2/3.
You probably said "there are one and two-thirds apples", but I suspect were a bit more hesitant.
Now, try 2/3.
You probably couldn't do it -- you had to switch to an entirely different construct: "there is two-thirds of an apple", or maybe "there are two-thirds of an apple", but you almost surely couldn't bring yourself to say "there are two-thirds apples" or "there is two-thirds apple".
There are two-thirds of an apple,
there is one-third of an apple,
but yes there are still no bananas.
How do you tally no bananas?
Re: zero bananas
Didn't you just make my point? Would we say that we have zero bananas?
There are zero loaves of bread, or no loaves of bread? As opposed to, we have a zero count.
Re: zero bananas
We could say, we have bananas....NOT.
Because if you had no (zero) item on your adjenda, you could still have several items on your adjenda.
Re: zero bananas
No, because you could still have a bananna.
This makes sense: everything that is not singular is by default plural.
Simple and satisfying, but according to the dictionary, wrong: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plural
Apparently, the real problem here is that we are speaking English:
So the answer is: it's a convention.
Zero in the above example is an adjective, not a noun. In English, unlike other languages, adjectives do not change with declension or pleurality of noun.
zero alumni, zero alumnae, etc.
A pleural use of zero as a noun is: How many zeros does 1 trillion dollars have?
By your logic "1 trillion" is an adjective here?
I'm checking to find out.
It appears so. If you look up the definition of a number it gives the definition when refering to a number of things as an adjective. Makes sense.
Wouldn't "1trillion" be the object? It isn't modifying the noun and I believe thats what adjectives do.
It is modifying the noun. Dollars being the noun it is describing the number of them.
Duh, got ya. I was confusing subject with noun hehe. Think I did that in English class alot too.
I only tally me bananas.
I think the strict answer is that zero should always be a noun, not an adjective …
all the natural numbers are adjectives, but they are written as numerals, with the same name, and a numeral is a noun …
eg the number "one" is written as the numeral "1", with the name "one".
but the number "no" is written as the numeral "0", with the name "zero".
You can pluralize zero:
Okay, not so much. In a similar fashion, there was some debate about what to call the first decade of this new millennium (in the same fashion as, say, the 20s and the 90s), and some suggested calling it the zeros. Never really caught on, so in the future, this decade might be the one that nobody ever talks about!
Separate names with a comma.