random thought
 

If zero is the lowest number, showing absence of value, then why is it if we showing an amount of zero we use the plural. For example it is gramatically correct to say zero apples, not zero apple. Just strikes me as odd that a value of less then one is treated gramatically as if its more then one.

it is odd.. i would try to justify it with Negation.. like, for there to be "zero apples" you had to be looking for Apple"s". So, it would serve to properly negate the first objective ( "a group of X" ). Like, you can negate the existance of a group by declaring that there are no singulars...

It just goes to show that some gramatical rules can be really stupid too...

Strictly speaking you couldn't use the singular either, since it indicates that there's one of a given thing. Numerical and grammatical logic probably shouldn't be mixed.

Basically, if it's not 1, it's plural. .5, 62, 0. All have almost the same grammatical treatment. The reason for this is clearly defined as: 1 is the loneliest number. Thereby, all other numbers would HAVE to be plural. So yes, I owe you 0 dollars, not 0 dollar.

Actually, when you say there are "Zero apples" it's like saying that of the group of apples of which there are many, there are none in this situation. Like, you are comparing zero apples to the collective group of apples.

Uhm, the opposite example would be if a one of a kind piece of art like say, the mona lisa was destroyed. You'd not say there was now "zero mona lisas" you'd say there is now "No mona lisa".

There is no spoon: That spoon in particular is not actually there, in reality.
There are no spoons: Would be the implication that spoons themselves do not exist, unless you added a qualifier like "There are no spoons in the matrix".

I think? I dunno, I'm not convinced I expressed what I was thinking terribly well and it was more a 'I kinda think it's this way" than a "I know something about the English language".

"I have half an apples" "I have half a dollars", sounds like it applies to fractions of a singular.

I have one third of an apple, thirteen seventeenths of an apple, etc etc.

Well say it like this "I have zero point five apples" and you see that this zero creates plurals rule holds true.

Confounded English. Foiled, again.

Okay I think iot works like this: Zero is specific only in the current tense. What I mean is that 0, being the absence of apples gives no implication on how many apples there are or will be. There are no apples what so ever. To use 0 outside of the plural would work like this: "There is not one apple" as apposed to "There are no apples"

but those examples dont use a numerical value. Point is that adding the value zero makes the word plural. You are right "Zero mona lisas" might not be the phrase you would use, but its still grammaticaly correct.

dear lord... the more i read this thread, the more i feel that we should call the Count from Sesame Street to take part in this...