As a linguistic expert with a deep understanding of the intricacies of the English language, I find the question about the plural form of "zero" quite intriguing. The use of the plural for zero in English is a fascinating aspect of our language that reflects both its historical development and its logical structure.

In English, the concept of plurality is typically associated with the presence of more than one item. However, the use of the plural form for zero is not about the quantity itself but rather the way we express the absence of quantity. This is a subtle but important distinction. When we say "zero apples," we are not saying there are multiple non-existent apples; rather, we are indicating that the count of apples is null. This is why "zero" is often paired with a plural noun—it reinforces the idea that we are talking about a complete absence in a countable context.

The historical development of the English language has also contributed to this usage. Old English, from which Modern English has evolved, did not have a specific word for "zero" as we understand it today. The concept of zero as a number that represents the absence of quantity was introduced to the English-speaking world through mathematical and scientific texts, often translated from other languages where zero already had a plural form due to their grammatical rules.

Moreover, the use of the plural with zero can also be seen as a way to maintain grammatical consistency. In English, we often use plural forms to refer to quantities, even when those quantities are represented by numbers. For example, we say "two apples" rather than "two apple." By using "zero" in the plural form, we are adhering to this pattern, even when the quantity is nil.

It's also worth noting that the use of the plural with zero can help to avoid ambiguity. If we were to say "zero apple," it might sound as though we are referring to a single non-existent apple, which could be confusing. By saying "zero apples," we make it clear that there are no apples at all.

In some contexts, fractions are treated differently, as you mentioned. When we talk about fractions in a way that implies a part of a whole, we use the singular form. For example, "half an apple" or "two thirds of an apple." This is because we are referring to a portion of a single entity, not multiple entities. However, when we express a fraction as a number that could represent a countable quantity, such as "0.5 things," we use the plural form to indicate that we are talking about a quantity, even if it is a fractional one.

In conclusion, the use of the plural with zero in English is a reflection of the language's need to express the absence of quantity in a clear and consistent manner. It is a testament to the flexibility and adaptability of English, which has evolved to accommodate the nuances of mathematical and scientific concepts while maintaining its grammatical coherence.

read more >>

Zero is something other than one of something, so it takes the plural. (Fractions of something also take the singular where they are expressed as 'half a thing' or 'two thirds of a thing', so the singular there is logical becasue you've referred to 'a thing'. You'd say '0.5 things', though).read more >>