3 ms·

> You can't naively rewrite those examples with a singular "What if there was no star in the sky?" does not sound particularly weird, and we can find instances

by 9rx 2y ago

> You can't naively rewrite those examples with a singular "What if there was no star in the sky?" does not sound particularly weird, and we can find instances of people using that exact phrase. If we focus on the key aspect of that statement, "no star in the sky" appears to be commonly used.

mayd 2y ago
This example does sound wrong to a native English speaker. It contains a subjunctive mood construct and the correct version would be: "What if there were no stars in the sky?"
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  "What if there were no star in the sky?" also works even if you want to use the subjunctive. Note that not all native speakers of English use or prefer this type of construction. Also, this use of "were" instead of "was" is sometimes now called irrealis and considered separate from the subjunctive (which is then used to refer only to constructions like "it's important that you be here early tomorrow").
  - hgomersall 2y ago
    It doesn't really. I'd immediately think "what about the rest of them?". "Not a star" works, but that's because it is made indefinite by the article. I wonder if the point here is that in English, dropping the article implies "the" in a way it doesn't in other languages.
  - philipwhiuk 2y ago
    It may found in usage, but then so is "liek".. At the end of the day there is accepted grammar and there is actual usage. If you ask people for the accepted grammar they will give you something most people accept. Which is not "What if there were no star in the sky?"
    - 9rx 2y ago
      At the end of the day there is only "the reader understands" and "the reader does not understand", with the former being the goal of the author. There is some benefit in using what is conventional to help achieve the desired outcome, but beyond that it matters not.
Terr_ 2y ago
> "What if there was no star in the sky?" does not sound particularly weird I disagree: The most-charitable scenario I can think of is that someone has context-shifted from regular "stars" to "our sun, Sol, which is technically a star even though we typically consider it separate from the rest." In other words, it involves a situation where someone is assuming the amount is capped at 1. (Yes, I know binary stars exist.) Compare: * "What if there was no star for Earth to orbit?" [Works because =1 is the normal assumption in this context] * "What if there was no star in the night sky?" [This is weird.] * "What if there was no constellation?" [This is also weird.]
- 9rx 2y ago
  > I disagree With what? English is defined by use, and we can find untold examples of "No star in the sky."
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    > we can find untold examples "All birds have eyes" != "All things that have eyes are birds." My hypothesis is that wherever we speak about "zero" and some quantity, it seems like we can substitute "no", and the pluralization rules we'd use for "no" are being inherited. In contrast, it sounds like you're going the opposite direction, starting with sentences that contain "no" where we cannot drop-in "zero". For example, "No star in the sky is green" cannot become "Zero star in the sky is green."
    - 9rx 2y ago
      > If I say all rodents are mammals, you can't disprove that just by pointing out the existence of dogs and cats. Without a full understanding of the intent and background behind that statement that is not clear. It might be disprovable under some circumstances. If we take it to the logical extreme, the words absolutely could be defined such that it is disprovable, so it obviously could be. Is that likely? In this case, probably not, but it becomes more likely when there is more fractured use. Consider tech jargon. The marjory of the discussions on HN are parties talking past each other because they came with different understandings of what words/phrases mean. > "No star in the sky is green" I wrote "No star in the sky<period>" to try and steer us away from different contexts. While I acknowledge that such usage also exists, that is outside of what I was trying to refer to and I think you will agree that in your interpretation that usage is not in line with what we are talking about. Such is the downfall of languages made up on the spot as they are used. All you can do is try and convey something to the recipient, and sometimes you'll fail. This ended up being a great example of exactly what we're talking about!
bee_rider 2y ago
It is possible I’ve made a completely imaginary link, but “no star in the sky” sounds slightly odd but in a poetic way. In particular “no star” seems pretty close to “not a star.” I mean, zero stars is technically zero stars. But if someone says “There was no star in the sky,” I parse that as something like: An astonishingly dark night, I searched the sky quite carefully and found not even one star. Meanwhile I parse “no stars in the sky” as: a very dark night, I didn’t see any stars. Of course really, it is always a matter of degree technically, right? The stars are always there. They are just sometimes attenuated to the point where your eye doesn’t detect them.
- 9rx 2y ago
  All of this is meaningless without the context found around the usage, of course, being that the language is entirely dependent on context. But let's assume for the sake of discussion a context of us both standing side by side looking at the night sky. If I said "There is no star in the sky", are you going to be unclear about what I am trying to say, yet understand me perfectly if I said "There are no stars in the sky"?
rogual 2y ago
It sounds natural to me only if you're expecting exactly one star. For example: The Three Wise Men are back. But this time, there's no star in the sky to guide them.

by 9rx 2y ago

mayd 2y ago

This example does sound wrong to a native English speaker. It contains a subjunctive mood construct and the correct version would be: "What if there were no stars in the sky?"

tsimionescu 2y ago
"What if there were no star in the sky?" also works even if you want to use the subjunctive. Note that not all native speakers of English use or prefer this type of construction. Also, this use of "were" instead of "was" is sometimes now called irrealis and considered separate from the subjunctive (which is then used to refer only to constructions like "it's important that you be here early tomorrow").
- hgomersall 2y ago
  It doesn't really. I'd immediately think "what about the rest of them?". "Not a star" works, but that's because it is made indefinite by the article. I wonder if the point here is that in English, dropping the article implies "the" in a way it doesn't in other languages.
- philipwhiuk 2y ago
  It may found in usage, but then so is "liek".. At the end of the day there is accepted grammar and there is actual usage. If you ask people for the accepted grammar they will give you something most people accept. Which is not "What if there were no star in the sky?"
  - 9rx 2y ago
    At the end of the day there is only "the reader understands" and "the reader does not understand", with the former being the goal of the author. There is some benefit in using what is conventional to help achieve the desired outcome, but beyond that it matters not.

Terr_ 2y ago

> "What if there was no star in the sky?" does not sound particularly weird I disagree: The most-charitable scenario I can think of is that someone has context-shifted from regular "stars" to "our sun, Sol, which is technically a star even though we typically consider it separate from the rest." In other words, it involves a situation where someone is assuming the amount is capped at 1. (Yes, I know binary stars exist.) Compare: * "What if there was no star for Earth to orbit?" [Works because =1 is the normal assumption in this context] * "What if there was no star in the night sky?" [This is weird.] * "What if there was no constellation?" [This is also weird.]

9rx 2y ago
> I disagree With what? English is defined by use, and we can find untold examples of "No star in the sky."
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > we can find untold examples "All birds have eyes" != "All things that have eyes are birds." My hypothesis is that wherever we speak about "zero" and some quantity, it seems like we can substitute "no", and the pluralization rules we'd use for "no" are being inherited. In contrast, it sounds like you're going the opposite direction, starting with sentences that contain "no" where we cannot drop-in "zero". For example, "No star in the sky is green" cannot become "Zero star in the sky is green."
  - 9rx 2y ago
    > If I say all rodents are mammals, you can't disprove that just by pointing out the existence of dogs and cats. Without a full understanding of the intent and background behind that statement that is not clear. It might be disprovable under some circumstances. If we take it to the logical extreme, the words absolutely could be defined such that it is disprovable, so it obviously could be. Is that likely? In this case, probably not, but it becomes more likely when there is more fractured use. Consider tech jargon. The marjory of the discussions on HN are parties talking past each other because they came with different understandings of what words/phrases mean. > "No star in the sky is green" I wrote "No star in the sky<period>" to try and steer us away from different contexts. While I acknowledge that such usage also exists, that is outside of what I was trying to refer to and I think you will agree that in your interpretation that usage is not in line with what we are talking about. Such is the downfall of languages made up on the spot as they are used. All you can do is try and convey something to the recipient, and sometimes you'll fail. This ended up being a great example of exactly what we're talking about!

bee_rider 2y ago

It is possible I’ve made a completely imaginary link, but “no star in the sky” sounds slightly odd but in a poetic way. In particular “no star” seems pretty close to “not a star.” I mean, zero stars is technically zero stars. But if someone says “There was no star in the sky,” I parse that as something like: An astonishingly dark night, I searched the sky quite carefully and found not even one star. Meanwhile I parse “no stars in the sky” as: a very dark night, I didn’t see any stars. Of course really, it is always a matter of degree technically, right? The stars are always there. They are just sometimes attenuated to the point where your eye doesn’t detect them.

9rx 2y ago
All of this is meaningless without the context found around the usage, of course, being that the language is entirely dependent on context. But let's assume for the sake of discussion a context of us both standing side by side looking at the night sky. If I said "There is no star in the sky", are you going to be unclear about what I am trying to say, yet understand me perfectly if I said "There are no stars in the sky"?

rogual 2y ago

It sounds natural to me only if you're expecting exactly one star. For example: The Three Wise Men are back. But this time, there's no star in the sky to guide them.