• itsprobablyfine@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wait. The singular of cattle is cattle? I think that’s the part that confuses me. Or is there no singular and you must use cow/bull? Either way I’ve never really thought about it and now I can’t not

    • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Actually, your already familiar with this: Moose.

      One Moose. Two Moose. Male is a bull. Female is a cow. 🤯

    • xantoxis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, the person you’re replying to is just wrong. The common name for that animal is cow, and in common usage it can refer to both sexes. Cattle is the plural.

    • fubo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “Cattle” is a mass noun. You have a lot of cattle.

      If you want to state a number of them, you have seventy-two head of cattle. “Head” is a counter; compare “sheets of paper”, “bales of hay”, or “hands of poker”.

      You wouldn’t say you have fifty hay, or that you played five pokers. And “papers” (count noun) are written works, whereas “paper” (mass noun) or “sheets of paper” (mass noun with counter) is what the works are written on.

      If you’re in the cattle business, you absolutely do care about their age, sex, and reproductive status. So you might have one calf and six cows; or three steers; or two heifers, a yearling calf, and a bull.

      If you really need to refer to one bovine without talking about its age, sex, or reproductive status … you have one head of cattle, or you have a cattlebeast.

      Yep, that’s a thing.