would it be that confusing to just say 1 tree, 2 tree, 3 tree, instead of having to add an s?
2007-01-13 08:29:57 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Languages
I would like to point out that many of the objections I have read here are irrelevant. Proof that we do not in fact need anything to diferentiate between singular and plural in nouns can be observed in the english language. There are cases in which nouns are no diferent in their singular form as they are in their plural form i.e. one sheep, two sheep. This does not make it any more confusing as we have ways of telling whether we are reffering to one sheep or more than one. We use 'a' before the noun if we wish to make it singular i.e. 'I have a sheep'. If we wish to make this plural we simply cut out the a i.e. I have sheep. This system works perfectly without any need to change the form of the noun itself. Please tell me if you have any objections to my theory.
2007-01-13 11:33:38 · update #1
Man I can't believe how anal some people can be about a simple question.
I see your point.
People are accustomed to forming the plural by putting S's on it, so they tend to react negatively to a suggestion like this.
Of course making something plural is not limited to using S's. Dice and Die for instance.
It really wouldn't change much like has been suggested.
Example:
I have a mouse
I have some mouse (of course it should be mice but that is another example of an unnecessary change.)
This only sounds strange because of what we are accustomed to hearing.
A better example:
I own a house
I own many house, or a few house, or a couple house, etc
The audible aesthetics is the only reason they balk.
If you were introduced to a new language and told that this is how they speak, you would except it at face value.
People don't handle change well.
Not that I am actually suggesting this change happen, I just agree that it shouldn't change much, and that it wouldn't limit our ability to express ourselves.
2007-01-13 10:26:42 · answer #1 · answered by Jagg 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't say there is really a point, if by that you mean a completely logical reason. As others have said here, some languages get along just fine without a plural marker such as the English "s". Still others have separate forms for singular, dual (just two), or plural (more than two). Preferences on these and many other points develop in languages over their history. But you're right; the information that plural "s" contributes can be had in other ways - often just inferred from context.
2007-01-13 12:17:12 · answer #2 · answered by obro 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There isn't a point - it's just one of the superfluous quirks of the English language (and many other languages, too).
Some languages, Japanese among them, have no plural at all. They seem to manage OK.
In response to all those who said the point is to distinguish between one and more than one, I would like to point out that we still don't know whether there are two or more than two. For example, if I were to say "I have cats at home" you don't know whether I have two or two hundred. It doesn't matter whether I have one or more than one - the statement is still just as ambiguous.There are some languages that have dual as well and singular and plural. For example - in Lithuanian, there is 1 vyras (man), there are 2 vyru and there are 3 or more vyrai. There is no point in the dual, because it doesn't matter whether there are two of something, or three or more of them.
2007-01-13 10:18:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It wouldn't be that confusing if you say 1 tree, 2 tree, 3 tree, but if you don't add the s, you'll need to give a number each time. What if i want to say "I have cats at home" but I don't want to specify how many? People won't know whether I have one cat or more than one cat if I say "I have cat at home". Adding an s is easier than using specific numbers every time. It would be very annoying to hear someone say "There are two hundred and sixty four zebras, nine hundred and thirteen pencils, twenty million six thousand five hundred and sixty six erasers and two skunks in my house" when they can simply say "There are zebraS, pencilS, eraserS and skunkS in my house".
2007-01-13 08:39:50 · answer #4 · answered by cx 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Too time consuming. That's the point of plurals. What if you had a field of trees? Would you count all the way up to 200, tree by tree? Get real, dude.
2007-01-13 08:35:02 · answer #5 · answered by INDRAG? 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
English is one of the easiest languagesl!!! you just gotta add 1 thats only ONE s to a word, to get the plural.... in most languages you gotta build a different form of the word and you complain about an s??? how effing stupit you gotta be???
2007-01-13 09:01:22 · answer #6 · answered by cynthia 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
you maybe right......in some cultures,they make no differnce between plural or singular,
2007-01-13 08:34:53 · answer #7 · answered by pdrfer 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What about the subleties and intricacies of any language?
You are right!
It’s enough to say: Me hungry, you food or bang.
But that wouldn’t define us as humans any more.
2007-01-13 08:34:06 · answer #8 · answered by saehli 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Plural would be all the people with common sense.........Singular would be you
2007-01-13 08:38:02 · answer #9 · answered by PoliticallyIncorrect 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
What happens if you don't know specifically how many items there are? What happens if the items are not countable (see "items" in these sentences)?
2007-01-13 08:34:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋