I like dogs / I like dog?
Moderator: Joe
I like dogs / I like dog?
Does it really matter whether plural is used?
-
- Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:06 pm
"I like dog" is possible. The sense it conveys is "I like dog-meat" or "I like to eat dog".
(Dog meaning dog-meat is uncountable.)
If this is not what you mean, you should say:
I like dogs
I like some dogs
I like your dogs
I like big dogs
etc
OR
I like this dog
I like my dog
I like every dog
I like the dog
etc
(Dog meaning the animal is countable. Thus, in this sense, "I like dog" is not English.)
http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/noun ... ntable.htm
(Dog meaning dog-meat is uncountable.)
If this is not what you mean, you should say:
I like dogs
I like some dogs
I like your dogs
I like big dogs
etc
OR
I like this dog
I like my dog
I like every dog
I like the dog
etc
(Dog meaning the animal is countable. Thus, in this sense, "I like dog" is not English.)
http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/noun ... ntable.htm
Doesn't matter
When you say, "I like dog." That means in your mind you have a figure of a dog, you don't care whatever dog it is , very general.But when you say," I like dogs". That means a variety of dogs appear in your mind.
The language you use convey your message.
The language you use convey your message.
plurality for generalizations...
Dear Meylenlau,
The type of generalization you are talking about grammatically requires plural usage. The type of distinguishing characteristic you are referring to reminds me of the differing definitions between the use of "fish" and "fishes". In general, "fish" is considered to be an uncountable noun, but if you are trying to distinguish multiple types of fish, which are different from each other, then you should utilize "fishes".
As far as "dog" and "dogs" go, I agree and hopefully reinforce Odyssey's previous lucid explanation for your further reference.
Sincerely,
Eric Paul Monroe
http://www.eric-tesol.com/
The type of generalization you are talking about grammatically requires plural usage. The type of distinguishing characteristic you are referring to reminds me of the differing definitions between the use of "fish" and "fishes". In general, "fish" is considered to be an uncountable noun, but if you are trying to distinguish multiple types of fish, which are different from each other, then you should utilize "fishes".
As far as "dog" and "dogs" go, I agree and hopefully reinforce Odyssey's previous lucid explanation for your further reference.
Sincerely,
Eric Paul Monroe
http://www.eric-tesol.com/
Re: plurality for generalizations...
eric_p_m wrote:Dear Meylenlau,
The type of generalization you are talking about grammatically requires plural usage. The type of distinguishing characteristic you are referring to reminds me of the differing definitions between the use of "fish" and "fishes". In general, "fish" is considered to be an uncountable noun, but if you are trying to distinguish multiple types of fish, which are different from each other, then you should utilize "fishes".
As far as "dog" and "dogs" go, I agree and hopefully reinforce Odyssey's previous lucid explanation for your further reference.
Sincerely,
Eric Paul Monroe
http://www.eric-tesol.com/
Thanks.