#1  
Old 02-Aug-2007, 18:28
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 319
Member Type: Student or Learner
Default Singular and plural and their effects

The history of deliberate cruelty to other species has taken a strange course. The early hunter had a kinship with animals. He respected them. So did the early farming people.

I would like to ask native speakers of English why YOU think the author made huter singular not plural but people plural, instead of the early farmer not singular and its effects, I mean, the impression you get. I would like to know that. I know hunter, animals and people are generic. I think animals shows all the species generally. People is people generally. So why only hunter is singular?
  #2  
Old 02-Aug-2007, 21:01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 557
Member Type: Other
Default Re: Singular and plural and their effects

Well, it could be that the author didn't give the lack of parallel between "hunter" (singular) and "farming people" (plural) much thought when he/she crafted the sentence.

Or it could be that, after using the single "hunter" as a rhetorical device [I think this is a synecdoche but I'm not quite sure, somebody help] the author decided to return to a more straightforward style.

[native speaker, not a teacher]
  #3  
Old 03-Aug-2007, 14:28
Member
Threadstarter  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 319
Member Type: Student or Learner
Default Re: Singular and plural and their effects

Thanks, Delmobile
Closed Thread

Bookmarks


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 05:51.



Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.