Why Is Zero Plural?

[skeptic2]

Why is zero plural?

(eg. I have zero items on my agenda.)

 

[Danger]

You can't multiply by zero and obtain any result other than zero, it's still just zero.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Why is zero plural?

(eg. I have zero items on my agenda.)

Is that a proper usage of the word "zero"?

We have no items.
We have a zero count.

 

[tiny-tim]

zero bananas

Is that a proper usage of the word "zero"?

Yes, we have no bananas

we have no bananas today! ​

 

[Pinu7]

Taking a wild guess...

A single object is singular.

A plural object is non-singular.

Zero, under this definition, will be a plural quantity.

 

[Hurkyl]

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".

 

[tiny-tim]

"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.

 

[George Jones]

but yes there are still no bananas.

How do you tally no bananas?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, we have no bananas

we have no bananas today! ​

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.

 

[dlgoff]

Would we say that we have zero bananas?

We could say, we have bananas...NOT.

 

[russ_watters]

Why is zero plural?

(eg. I have zero items on my agenda.)

Because if you had no (zero) item on your adjenda, you could still have several items on your adjenda.

 

[russ_watters]

We could say, we have bananas...NOT.

No, because you could still have a bananna.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Taking a wild guess...

A single object is singular.

A plural object is non-singular.

Zero, under this definition, will be a plural quantity.

This makes sense: everything that is not singular is by default plural.

 

[russ_watters]

Simple and satisfying, but according to the dictionary, wrong: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plural

consisting of, containing, or pertaining to more than one.

Apparently, the real problem here is that we are speaking English:

Plural is a grammatical number...Languages having only a singular and plural form may still differ in their treatment of zero. For example, in English, German, Dutch, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese, the plural form is used for zero or more than one, and the singular for one thing only. By contrast, in French, the singular form is used for zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural

 

[zoobyshoe]

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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural

So the answer is: it's a convention.

 

[Bob S]

Why is zero plural?

(eg. I have zero items on my agenda.)

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?

 

[zoobyshoe]

How many zeros does 1 trillion dollars have?

By your logic "1 trillion" is an adjective here?

 

[tribdog]

By your logic "1 trillion" is an adjective here?

isn't it?

 

[zoobyshoe]

isn't it?

I'm checking to find out.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

By your logic "1 trillion" is an adjective here?

It appears so. If you look up the definition of a number it gives the definition when referring to a number of things as an adjective. Makes sense.

 

By your logic "1 trillion" is an adjective here?

Wouldn't "1trillion" be the object? It isn't modifying the noun and I believe that's what adjectives do.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Wouldn't "1trillion" be the object? It isn't modifying the noun and I believe that's what adjectives do.

It is modifying the noun. Dollars being the noun it is describing the number of them.

 

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 a lot too.

 

[tiny-tim]

me bananas!

Hi George!

How do you tally no bananas?

I only tally me bananas.

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?

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".

 

[MATLABdude]

You can pluralize zero:

The Kamikaze Zeros are to starboard!

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!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I asked a bunch of my friends, but none were able to help. Then I asked my wife and she was. Imagine that, she's not even a native speaker.

 

[Chi Meson]

Why is zero plural?

Don't you mean "Why are zero plural"? Of course you don't.

When we say "there are zero things here" we are vulgarizing the correct phrase "the number of those things that are here is zero."

In general, the absence of a thing is the absence of one of those things; "one of those things" is singular.

"There is not one of those things here."
"There is none of those things here."
"There is nothing here."

So you should say "I have no item on my agenda"; but in conversation, we are allowed to make things "sound better than correct," so we do say "I have no items on my agenda." This suggests the lack of the expected "many things."

Notice the obvious singular: "I have nothing on my agenda."
"nothing" = "no thing" = "zero thing"

Apparently, the real problem here is that we are speaking English

Agree