Do you say the plural TO or OF something? [on hold]












3















Are these sentences both correct?




What is the plural of boy?



What is the plural to boy?




Are they interchangeable?










share|improve this question















put on hold as off-topic by Mari-Lou A, Hellion, Lambie, fred2, Varun Nair 15 hours ago


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question should include more details than have been provided here. Please edit to add the research you have done in your efforts to answer the question, or provide more context. See: Details, Please." – Mari-Lou A, Hellion, fred2, Varun Nair

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.












  • 2





    Please don't use the backslash when listing alternatives; instead, use the forward slash (/).

    – userr2684291
    2 days ago











  • Are you asking with regard to a certain version of English?

    – Davo
    yesterday
















3















Are these sentences both correct?




What is the plural of boy?



What is the plural to boy?




Are they interchangeable?










share|improve this question















put on hold as off-topic by Mari-Lou A, Hellion, Lambie, fred2, Varun Nair 15 hours ago


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question should include more details than have been provided here. Please edit to add the research you have done in your efforts to answer the question, or provide more context. See: Details, Please." – Mari-Lou A, Hellion, fred2, Varun Nair

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.












  • 2





    Please don't use the backslash when listing alternatives; instead, use the forward slash (/).

    – userr2684291
    2 days ago











  • Are you asking with regard to a certain version of English?

    – Davo
    yesterday














3












3








3


1






Are these sentences both correct?




What is the plural of boy?



What is the plural to boy?




Are they interchangeable?










share|improve this question
















Are these sentences both correct?




What is the plural of boy?



What is the plural to boy?




Are they interchangeable?







prepositions grammaticality-in-context






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday









CJ Dennis

1,953717




1,953717










asked 2 days ago









Kumar sadhuKumar sadhu

471213




471213




put on hold as off-topic by Mari-Lou A, Hellion, Lambie, fred2, Varun Nair 15 hours ago


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question should include more details than have been provided here. Please edit to add the research you have done in your efforts to answer the question, or provide more context. See: Details, Please." – Mari-Lou A, Hellion, fred2, Varun Nair

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.







put on hold as off-topic by Mari-Lou A, Hellion, Lambie, fred2, Varun Nair 15 hours ago


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question should include more details than have been provided here. Please edit to add the research you have done in your efforts to answer the question, or provide more context. See: Details, Please." – Mari-Lou A, Hellion, fred2, Varun Nair

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.








  • 2





    Please don't use the backslash when listing alternatives; instead, use the forward slash (/).

    – userr2684291
    2 days ago











  • Are you asking with regard to a certain version of English?

    – Davo
    yesterday














  • 2





    Please don't use the backslash when listing alternatives; instead, use the forward slash (/).

    – userr2684291
    2 days ago











  • Are you asking with regard to a certain version of English?

    – Davo
    yesterday








2




2





Please don't use the backslash when listing alternatives; instead, use the forward slash (/).

– userr2684291
2 days ago





Please don't use the backslash when listing alternatives; instead, use the forward slash (/).

– userr2684291
2 days ago













Are you asking with regard to a certain version of English?

– Davo
yesterday





Are you asking with regard to a certain version of English?

– Davo
yesterday










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















9














It’s always the plural of something.




What is the plural of “boy”?



To make the plural of "dog" you add the plural ending -s.



“Are” is the second person plural of the verb “to be”.



The word “teeth” is an irregular plural of the noun “tooth”.



What's the plural of “tooth”?







share|improve this answer
























  • But I have seen the sentence: "there is no singular to audience."

    – Kumar sadhu
    2 days ago








  • 4





    @Kumarsadhu - You may have seen this, but it’s incorrect. English has a very large number of speakers as a non-native language, and as such, mistakes are extremely common.

    – Chris Melville
    2 days ago






  • 4





    @Kumar sadhu- That is not normal English. You could get away with 'for', but 'of' is preferred.

    – amI
    2 days ago



















3















"there is no singular to audience."




This is semantically incorrect - audience is a singular word, the plural of which is audiences - but syntactically, it's fine. If we instead pick a word like sheep, where the same word stands for one or many, then there is no plural to sheep is equally as correct as there is no plural of sheep.



The use of the different prepositions (of, to) gives different inflections to the adjective (singular). We can see this if we add explicit nouns:




There is no plural form of 'sheep'



There is no plural equivalent to 'sheep'




This holds while we are saying there is no.... In all the examples so far provided, we are making the adjectives plural or singular stand in for nouns. If we are asking about the existence of a plural, then form makes sense as the noun, but so might equivalent or aspect, both of which will be happy with a to.



In the examples provided by Andrew Tobilko, this would not hold. of is the only valid choice in those examples.



Generally, to can be used to relate qualities to objects. For example, it's natural and correct to say there is no flavour to this food - especially if you are a visitor to Britain.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




FSCKur is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    +1 for the joke in the final paragraph.

    – fred2
    2 days ago











  • Note that 'equivalent' is an adjective in a reduced relative phrase: "There is no plural [that is] equivalent to 'sheep'." If it was parsed as a noun (with 'plural' as adjective) then 'to' is just as clunky as "There is no plural to 'sheep'."

    – amI
    2 days ago











  • An excellent and germane clarification, thank you!

    – FSCKur
    2 days ago


















2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









9














It’s always the plural of something.




What is the plural of “boy”?



To make the plural of "dog" you add the plural ending -s.



“Are” is the second person plural of the verb “to be”.



The word “teeth” is an irregular plural of the noun “tooth”.



What's the plural of “tooth”?







share|improve this answer
























  • But I have seen the sentence: "there is no singular to audience."

    – Kumar sadhu
    2 days ago








  • 4





    @Kumarsadhu - You may have seen this, but it’s incorrect. English has a very large number of speakers as a non-native language, and as such, mistakes are extremely common.

    – Chris Melville
    2 days ago






  • 4





    @Kumar sadhu- That is not normal English. You could get away with 'for', but 'of' is preferred.

    – amI
    2 days ago
















9














It’s always the plural of something.




What is the plural of “boy”?



To make the plural of "dog" you add the plural ending -s.



“Are” is the second person plural of the verb “to be”.



The word “teeth” is an irregular plural of the noun “tooth”.



What's the plural of “tooth”?







share|improve this answer
























  • But I have seen the sentence: "there is no singular to audience."

    – Kumar sadhu
    2 days ago








  • 4





    @Kumarsadhu - You may have seen this, but it’s incorrect. English has a very large number of speakers as a non-native language, and as such, mistakes are extremely common.

    – Chris Melville
    2 days ago






  • 4





    @Kumar sadhu- That is not normal English. You could get away with 'for', but 'of' is preferred.

    – amI
    2 days ago














9












9








9







It’s always the plural of something.




What is the plural of “boy”?



To make the plural of "dog" you add the plural ending -s.



“Are” is the second person plural of the verb “to be”.



The word “teeth” is an irregular plural of the noun “tooth”.



What's the plural of “tooth”?







share|improve this answer













It’s always the plural of something.




What is the plural of “boy”?



To make the plural of "dog" you add the plural ending -s.



“Are” is the second person plural of the verb “to be”.



The word “teeth” is an irregular plural of the noun “tooth”.



What's the plural of “tooth”?








share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 2 days ago









Andrew TobilkoAndrew Tobilko

1,765521




1,765521













  • But I have seen the sentence: "there is no singular to audience."

    – Kumar sadhu
    2 days ago








  • 4





    @Kumarsadhu - You may have seen this, but it’s incorrect. English has a very large number of speakers as a non-native language, and as such, mistakes are extremely common.

    – Chris Melville
    2 days ago






  • 4





    @Kumar sadhu- That is not normal English. You could get away with 'for', but 'of' is preferred.

    – amI
    2 days ago



















  • But I have seen the sentence: "there is no singular to audience."

    – Kumar sadhu
    2 days ago








  • 4





    @Kumarsadhu - You may have seen this, but it’s incorrect. English has a very large number of speakers as a non-native language, and as such, mistakes are extremely common.

    – Chris Melville
    2 days ago






  • 4





    @Kumar sadhu- That is not normal English. You could get away with 'for', but 'of' is preferred.

    – amI
    2 days ago

















But I have seen the sentence: "there is no singular to audience."

– Kumar sadhu
2 days ago







But I have seen the sentence: "there is no singular to audience."

– Kumar sadhu
2 days ago






4




4





@Kumarsadhu - You may have seen this, but it’s incorrect. English has a very large number of speakers as a non-native language, and as such, mistakes are extremely common.

– Chris Melville
2 days ago





@Kumarsadhu - You may have seen this, but it’s incorrect. English has a very large number of speakers as a non-native language, and as such, mistakes are extremely common.

– Chris Melville
2 days ago




4




4





@Kumar sadhu- That is not normal English. You could get away with 'for', but 'of' is preferred.

– amI
2 days ago





@Kumar sadhu- That is not normal English. You could get away with 'for', but 'of' is preferred.

– amI
2 days ago













3















"there is no singular to audience."




This is semantically incorrect - audience is a singular word, the plural of which is audiences - but syntactically, it's fine. If we instead pick a word like sheep, where the same word stands for one or many, then there is no plural to sheep is equally as correct as there is no plural of sheep.



The use of the different prepositions (of, to) gives different inflections to the adjective (singular). We can see this if we add explicit nouns:




There is no plural form of 'sheep'



There is no plural equivalent to 'sheep'




This holds while we are saying there is no.... In all the examples so far provided, we are making the adjectives plural or singular stand in for nouns. If we are asking about the existence of a plural, then form makes sense as the noun, but so might equivalent or aspect, both of which will be happy with a to.



In the examples provided by Andrew Tobilko, this would not hold. of is the only valid choice in those examples.



Generally, to can be used to relate qualities to objects. For example, it's natural and correct to say there is no flavour to this food - especially if you are a visitor to Britain.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




FSCKur is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    +1 for the joke in the final paragraph.

    – fred2
    2 days ago











  • Note that 'equivalent' is an adjective in a reduced relative phrase: "There is no plural [that is] equivalent to 'sheep'." If it was parsed as a noun (with 'plural' as adjective) then 'to' is just as clunky as "There is no plural to 'sheep'."

    – amI
    2 days ago











  • An excellent and germane clarification, thank you!

    – FSCKur
    2 days ago
















3















"there is no singular to audience."




This is semantically incorrect - audience is a singular word, the plural of which is audiences - but syntactically, it's fine. If we instead pick a word like sheep, where the same word stands for one or many, then there is no plural to sheep is equally as correct as there is no plural of sheep.



The use of the different prepositions (of, to) gives different inflections to the adjective (singular). We can see this if we add explicit nouns:




There is no plural form of 'sheep'



There is no plural equivalent to 'sheep'




This holds while we are saying there is no.... In all the examples so far provided, we are making the adjectives plural or singular stand in for nouns. If we are asking about the existence of a plural, then form makes sense as the noun, but so might equivalent or aspect, both of which will be happy with a to.



In the examples provided by Andrew Tobilko, this would not hold. of is the only valid choice in those examples.



Generally, to can be used to relate qualities to objects. For example, it's natural and correct to say there is no flavour to this food - especially if you are a visitor to Britain.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




FSCKur is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    +1 for the joke in the final paragraph.

    – fred2
    2 days ago











  • Note that 'equivalent' is an adjective in a reduced relative phrase: "There is no plural [that is] equivalent to 'sheep'." If it was parsed as a noun (with 'plural' as adjective) then 'to' is just as clunky as "There is no plural to 'sheep'."

    – amI
    2 days ago











  • An excellent and germane clarification, thank you!

    – FSCKur
    2 days ago














3












3








3








"there is no singular to audience."




This is semantically incorrect - audience is a singular word, the plural of which is audiences - but syntactically, it's fine. If we instead pick a word like sheep, where the same word stands for one or many, then there is no plural to sheep is equally as correct as there is no plural of sheep.



The use of the different prepositions (of, to) gives different inflections to the adjective (singular). We can see this if we add explicit nouns:




There is no plural form of 'sheep'



There is no plural equivalent to 'sheep'




This holds while we are saying there is no.... In all the examples so far provided, we are making the adjectives plural or singular stand in for nouns. If we are asking about the existence of a plural, then form makes sense as the noun, but so might equivalent or aspect, both of which will be happy with a to.



In the examples provided by Andrew Tobilko, this would not hold. of is the only valid choice in those examples.



Generally, to can be used to relate qualities to objects. For example, it's natural and correct to say there is no flavour to this food - especially if you are a visitor to Britain.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




FSCKur is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











"there is no singular to audience."




This is semantically incorrect - audience is a singular word, the plural of which is audiences - but syntactically, it's fine. If we instead pick a word like sheep, where the same word stands for one or many, then there is no plural to sheep is equally as correct as there is no plural of sheep.



The use of the different prepositions (of, to) gives different inflections to the adjective (singular). We can see this if we add explicit nouns:




There is no plural form of 'sheep'



There is no plural equivalent to 'sheep'




This holds while we are saying there is no.... In all the examples so far provided, we are making the adjectives plural or singular stand in for nouns. If we are asking about the existence of a plural, then form makes sense as the noun, but so might equivalent or aspect, both of which will be happy with a to.



In the examples provided by Andrew Tobilko, this would not hold. of is the only valid choice in those examples.



Generally, to can be used to relate qualities to objects. For example, it's natural and correct to say there is no flavour to this food - especially if you are a visitor to Britain.







share|improve this answer








New contributor




FSCKur is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer






New contributor




FSCKur is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 2 days ago









FSCKurFSCKur

311




311




New contributor




FSCKur is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





FSCKur is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






FSCKur is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1





    +1 for the joke in the final paragraph.

    – fred2
    2 days ago











  • Note that 'equivalent' is an adjective in a reduced relative phrase: "There is no plural [that is] equivalent to 'sheep'." If it was parsed as a noun (with 'plural' as adjective) then 'to' is just as clunky as "There is no plural to 'sheep'."

    – amI
    2 days ago











  • An excellent and germane clarification, thank you!

    – FSCKur
    2 days ago














  • 1





    +1 for the joke in the final paragraph.

    – fred2
    2 days ago











  • Note that 'equivalent' is an adjective in a reduced relative phrase: "There is no plural [that is] equivalent to 'sheep'." If it was parsed as a noun (with 'plural' as adjective) then 'to' is just as clunky as "There is no plural to 'sheep'."

    – amI
    2 days ago











  • An excellent and germane clarification, thank you!

    – FSCKur
    2 days ago








1




1





+1 for the joke in the final paragraph.

– fred2
2 days ago





+1 for the joke in the final paragraph.

– fred2
2 days ago













Note that 'equivalent' is an adjective in a reduced relative phrase: "There is no plural [that is] equivalent to 'sheep'." If it was parsed as a noun (with 'plural' as adjective) then 'to' is just as clunky as "There is no plural to 'sheep'."

– amI
2 days ago





Note that 'equivalent' is an adjective in a reduced relative phrase: "There is no plural [that is] equivalent to 'sheep'." If it was parsed as a noun (with 'plural' as adjective) then 'to' is just as clunky as "There is no plural to 'sheep'."

– amI
2 days ago













An excellent and germane clarification, thank you!

– FSCKur
2 days ago





An excellent and germane clarification, thank you!

– FSCKur
2 days ago



Popular posts from this blog

Plaza Victoria

Brian Clough

Cáceres