0

I was writing an essay on The Cow. I started like this:

The cow is a four-footed domestic animal. It has a big body...

....There are many different breeds of cows in the world.

You would notice that I started with 'the cow' and then I changed to 'cows'.

Is there anything wrong about this?

Is it grammatically incorrect switching between them two?

KillingTime
  • 6,206
user100323
  • 109
  • I compared the Ngrams for "breeds of dog" and "breeds of dogs" and found they were roughly the same but that is out of context. You have aleady used 'cow' as a mass noun. – Weather Vane Mar 13 '21 at 20:15
  • 2
    Take a look at this first; it may save you some trouble later. – John Lawler Mar 13 '21 at 22:37
  • You have different sentences with different subjects. You’re not switching between anything here. – FeliniusRex - gone Mar 13 '21 at 23:10
  • @WeatherVane: I compared the specific string *different breeds of cow/s* for my search. As I expected, the singular version practically flatlines compared to the plural. Maybe because "cow" is a less "archetypal" animal than "dog", I dunno – FumbleFingers Mar 14 '21 at 12:45
  • 4
    Does this answer your question? Types of things vs. types of thing. *Types, varieties, breeds, sorts* - it's all the same kind of thing(s! :) – FumbleFingers Mar 14 '21 at 12:48
  • 1
    @JohnLawler: I spent a couple of minutes frying my brains trying to make sense of Look On My Words, Ye Mighty, And Despair!, having not really registered the significance of the label "Chomskybot" that I clicked on after reading your excellent "article types in generic noun phrases". What's really fascinating is the way the generated text seems to balance unstably between "meaning" and "gobbledegook", like that cartoon drawing that might be a duck or might be a rabbit (also pretty girl / old hag, and others). Made my head swim like having a joint! – FumbleFingers Mar 14 '21 at 13:10
  • @FumbleFingers I chose 'dog' because I supposed it would be far more prevalent than 'cow', so no flat lines. They were more similar in recent years only, less so historically. – Weather Vane Mar 14 '21 at 14:04
  • @WeatherVane: I would have chosen "dog" myself, for exactly the same reason. But when I read your comment, I didn't stop to think about what I would have expected with "dog" - I was preoccupied with thinking that the plural seemed more natural than singular for OP's specific case of "cows". It was only after creating my own apparently contradictory chart link that I stopped to think "Why should there be any difference between 'cow' and 'dog' here?". I'm still baffled - maybe it's a meaningless artefact, but maybe it's because "the dog" is a more "archetypal" animal. Or something else. – FumbleFingers Mar 14 '21 at 14:52
  • I think it sounds strange as “breeds of cows”. But I think everyone would agree it’s “cow breeds” and “dog breeds”. Right? – Jim Mar 14 '21 at 14:56
  • @Jim: Yes. As a rule, the singular form is used for the first part of a compound noun. – FumbleFingers Mar 14 '21 at 15:01
  • @FumbleFingers Yes, the way those things just hover at the edge of meaningfulness is disconcerting, to say the least. When we started it up back in the Carboniferous Web we got a lot of responses like that. Some people said they thought they remembered reading it in school, but couldn't understand it then, either. – John Lawler Mar 14 '21 at 15:18
  • @JohnLawler: Most of the things that make human brains "happy" are fairly obviously directly related to keeping us and our progeny alive (we like eating, sex, being cosy and warm, etc.). But we all seem to like at least a certain amount of being confused and uncertain (in which context reading a murder mystery is "a bit" like being intoxicated). I guess even before we had language, it was still "pro-survival" to be constantly unsure whether it was a predator or the breeze rustling the leaves. So when language arrives, we treasure its scope for uncertainty, as much as for conveying meaning. – FumbleFingers Mar 14 '21 at 15:44
  • 1
    (It's not quite so ground-breaking as Mrs Anne Elk's theory about dinosaurs, but I'm quite proud of my theory that use of language and use of intoxicants are closely-connected activities, both intended to make us happy by making us *more confused!* :) – FumbleFingers Mar 14 '21 at 15:48

0 Answers0