Why Are Zero Things Plural? 5

[Lunatic]

I've searched the forum and checked Wikipedia (

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero)

but I can't find anything about this topic. I know Wikipedia isn't a definitive voice, but it is a good starting point to find out what you need to look for.

Why are zero things plural?

You have zero cars/things

You have one car/thing

You have two cars/things

So why are zero things plural?


***************************************
Have a problem with my spelling or grammar? Please refer all complaints to my English teacher:
Ralphy "Me fail English? That's unpossible." Wiggum

 

[CajunCenturion]

One happened just a couple of days ago and here's the video:

There are runners on 1st and 2nd, running on the pitch, and a line drive to short.

http://video.aol.com/video/unassisted-triple-play/1897838

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[karluk]

Yes, 1920 was the year.

Bill Wambsganss, October 10, 1920, Cleveland Indians (vs. Brooklyn)
In the fifth inning of Game 5 of the World Series, second baseman Wambsganss caught Clarence Mitchell's line drive, stepped on second to retire Pete Kilduff, and tagged Otto Miller coming from first base. This is perhaps the most famous unassisted triple play in the sport's history, as it is the only one to take place during the World Series. Earlier in this same game, the very first grand slam in Series play was hit by Elmer Smith. A still photo of the event (above) shows Wambsganss running over to tag Miller, who seems to be standing in place, confused. That finish to the play was echoed in Tulowitzki's April 29, 2007, play, in which the runner from first, Renteria, made no discernible effort to turn around and run back to first.

 

[karluk]

I have the honor of personally witnessing a feat that may be even rarer than an unassisted triple play, namely a slugger hitting a 500 foot home run. This type of record is prone to exaggeration, but I was at County Stadium in Milwaukee on September 14, 1991 to see Cecil Fielder hit one out of the park. I knew it could be done, but I never expected to see it. I have never been so astonished in my life.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/feats/art_hr.shtml

Any drive over 400 feet is noteworthy. A blow of 450 feet shows exceptional power, as the majority of major league players are unable to hit a ball that far. Anything in the 500-foot range is genuinely historic. For perspective, consider the computerized measuring system implemented by IBM in most major league cities in 1982. By 1995, the sponsorship had changed, but the program had been expanded to include every big league ballpark. During those years, only one drive of 500 feet was confirmed by this system. Cecil Fielder of the Detroit Tigers is credited with powering a ball 502 feet in the air over the left-field bleachers at Milwaukee's County Stadium on September 14, 1991.

 

[Lunatic]

Karluk,

Did you know that prior to the 1920's or so it was the Triple that was considered to be the 'power hitters' forte?

This is because many fields didn't have outfield fences, and those that did were much further back than today.

One of the biggest reasons why Babe Ruth's numbers were so astounding compared to earlier ball players was because prior to then home runs were rare, and usually the inside-the-park kind (because there was no outside).

I found that fascinating ;-p

I'm a little jealous of the Fielder hit. Was that the season he hit 51 (or was it 52)? Back when hitting 50 home runs in a season was an epic accomplishment as well?

***************************************
Have a problem with my spelling or grammar? Please refer all complaints to my English teacher:
Ralphy "Me fail English? That's unpossible." Wiggum

 

[SantaMufasa]

I just watched Colorado Rockie Tulowitzki's Unassisted Triple Play. Wow! What a thing of beauty.

For those that want to see it, I believe this is the best, most direct link to The Play. (The first link, above, you must first watch some women taking showers with Dove soap [which may be of interest to some vierwers], and if you use the second link, above, you must know what game and play you are looking for before you can navigate to the video.)

But thanks to Lunatic and CC, who simulateously posted those different links to the same play. Both of you, please accept a

for making my day.

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]

 

[karluk]

I had to look it up. It was the year after Fielder's 51 HR season.

By the way, it wasn't a given that the monster home run would even get out of the park. As I recall there was a guy with a baseball glove reaching above the fence protecting the top of the left field bleachers. The ball went over his head, but it looked to me as if he might have had a chance to catch it if he had had Michael Jordan's vertical leap. I guess Michael must have had something else to do that night.

 

[mharroff]

Actually " ... no hits, no runs, and no errors" can potentially be said at the end of every half inning so therefore it isn't that rare.

 

[Lunatic]

Touché

mharroff

Touché

***************************************
Have a problem with my spelling or grammar? Please refer all complaints to my English teacher:
Ralphy "Me fail English? That's unpossible." Wiggum

 

[SantaMufasa]

Although most broadcasters/announcers say, "No runs, no hits, no errors," but who's counting anyway? <grin>

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]

 

[Olaf Doschke]

In german we have the same way of handling zero things as plural. It does seem normal to me. You talk about a quantity of things, then you think about the share of all those things and they normally are plural, there are cars, apples, etc. It's just a bit odd to say zero cars or houses instead of no car or no house, because normal people only afford one of those anyway.

On the other side for the singular we use a shortened version of the number one: Instead of "he has eins car" we say "he has ein car" (er hat ein Auto). That even is that way if its 101, then it's einhundertein Autos instead of einhunderteins Autos. And instead of "no car"/"nein auto" we say "kein Auto".

Bye, Olaf.

 

[Thadeus]

Thanks Olaf! It's been about 22 years since I took German in High School... I can't say I remember that distinction of leaving off the 's' when speaking of a singular noun.

Hearing from you really makes me wish I'd been able to pull off mastering that language. Who knew this internet thing was around the corner and I'd be able to chat with German speakers as easily as if I was in Germany. For me, learning German got grouped with learning quadratic equations; no practical use in my expected future.

~Thadeus

PS. I was right on the quadratic bit. I only ever needed to understand them when I had to assist my son with his schoolwork.

 

[Turkbear]

Hi,
The plural used with Zero is representative of a set of objects ( cars, things, etc), of which there are Zero members.

Silly example:
He has 0 cars (out of all cars in existance that he could have 1 or more of).








To Paraphrase:"The Help you get is proportional to the Help you give.."

 

[Lunatic]

Turkbear,

Would the same apply to one as well?

If the condition for making something plural is if is representative of a set of objects, then why would there be a difference between a set of zero objects or a set of one objects?

Silly example 2:
He has 1 car (out of all cars in existance that he could have 1 or more of).

Its still apply to a set of objects, so shouldn't, by that logic, 1 be plural as well?

***************************************
Have a problem with my spelling or grammar? Please refer all complaints to my English teacher:
Ralphy "Me fail English? That's unpossible." Wiggum

 

[Turkbear]

Hi,
The difference, as I see it, is that by the use of 1 ( a fixed number) you are no longer referring to the set of cars in general, but to the specific car he now owns..
If you had said:
"He has 1 of the cars that exist", then plural is ok.








To Paraphrase:"The Help you get is proportional to the Help you give.."

 

[AnotherHiggins]

It doesn't seem odd to me to use the singular only for one and the plural for zero.

He has 1 car (out of all cars in existance that he could have 1 or more of)

But when saying "one" you are talking about that one, particular car that he does have.

Zero is an abstract concept. You can't hold zero of a thing. So, when discussing zero of an item, you are saying you do not have any of the items out there.

[tt]_____
[blue]-John[/blue][/tt]
[tab][red]The plural of anecdote is not data[/red]

Help us help you. Please read FAQ181-2886 before posting.

 

[SantaMufasa]

why would there be a difference between a set of zero objects or a set of one objects?...He has 1 car (out of all cars in existance that he could have 1 or more of).

Just think of how much more streamlined and efficient English (and other languages) would be if we followed and extrapolated Lunatic's concept. (I am coming to realise that Lunatic certainly isn't -- lunatic.)


Here is my overview of how things could work and how much more efficient/streamlined English could be if we implemented this overhaul:

Features:

1) Eliminate the concepts of singular and plural. Just use a singular, nominal label for any noun...no more "s", "es", or "ies"...Just plain, singular nouns: car, house, friend, child, et cetera. (Wow, think of the savings: You just instantly eliminated [B][I]half[/I][/B] of all noun spellings by removing their plurals!)

Also, while you are at it, eliminate ([b]stupid[/b]) unnecessary (plural) verb conjugations...the cardinality of the subject removes the need for additional conjugations.

(And for languages with feminine/masculine distinctions [e.g., "el" versus "la"], drop those stupidities, as well.)

2) Use a cardinal value to indicate cardinality ([b]What a concept![/b]): "He own 0 car. I own 1 car. She own 5 car."

The above concepts of singular vs. plural, conjugation (and masculine/feminine in some languages) are archaic, unnecessary wastes at so many levels. Structured, modern language does not need any of the above.


Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]

 

[AnotherHiggins]

Santa, me like idea doubleplus good.

[tt]_____
[blue]-John[/blue][/tt]
[tab][red]The plural of anecdote is not data[/red]

Help us help you. Please read FAQ181-2886 before posting.

 

[Lunatic]

Santa

You give me far too much credit ;-p

Turkbear
One doesn't always reference a specific item, as would be necessary for your explaination to hold across the board.

For example:

For being bad, you can have zero cookies.
For being good, you can have one cookie.

In that example one doesn't reference any specific cookie, just a set of cookies the person may have. A set of 1.

anotherhiggins

I know that zero isn't a number (its actually the absence of a number or something like that). But that means it is inherently neither singular or plural as there is nothing to be singular or plural about. Its almost arbitrary that zero is plural as opposed to being singular.

Cajun's definition (one = singular, everything else = plural) makes some sense... I was just hoping for something a little more... logical? I know, its a lot to hope for from English ;-p

I just want a reasoning that makes me happy... make one up if you need to ;-p

***************************************
Have a problem with my spelling or grammar? Please refer all complaints to my English teacher:
Ralphy "Me fail English? That's unpossible." Wiggum

 

[SantaMufasa]

Santa, me like idea doubleplus good.

John, you bring up/make another excellent efficiency opportinity: Get rid of all subjective-sense pronouns such as I, he, she, we, they. (I chose to "assassinate" subjective pronouns since English speakers (especially Americans) already heavily misuse and abuse subjective pronouns:

"Bill took my wife and I to dinner." <ouch>


"Who wants to go to the store?"..."Me!" <"Me" do?...excuse me?>

"Susan likes lab rats more than me." <I'm hurt...she likes rodents more than she like me.>

"Who deserves to win the prize?"..."Us!" <"Us" do?">

So, with all of the incredible abuse that occurs already with objective-versus-subjective pronouns, I say simply, "Off with their (subjective) heads...Make everything objective."

So, the above uses of objective pronouns would become correct, but we would need to become used to the following (especially if/when we add in the "efficiencies" I suggested in the earlier post):

"Me need to eat breakfast."
"Us won 3 event."
"Her drive me crazy."
"Him speak well."
"Them share the same opinion."
(Or, as John said earlier)"Me like idea."

Yes, it will hurt the ears of those of us that love proper use of the English language, but if we optimise the language to just say "no" to any subjective pronouns, then any subjective/objective-sense abuse "disappear", by definition.

What think ye?

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]

 

[SantaMufasa]

I know that zero isn't a number (its actually the absence of a number or something like that).

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Lunatic...Please don't disappoint me here...: "0" is absolutely, positively a number. You may be confusing zero (a number) with the concept of "NULL", which certainly is the absence of any value.

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]