1003. This week, we look at zero — what a weird number! It has two plurals, sometimes you use the word and sometimes you use the numeral, and it gave rise to a bunch of idioms in the World War II era. Then we turn our attention to email. Generational differences can lead to misunderstandings. We explain why and how to avoid them.
1003. This week, we look at zero — what a weird number! It has two plurals, sometimes you use the word and sometimes you use the numeral, and it gave rise to a bunch of idioms in the World War II era. Then we turn our attention to email. Generational differences can lead to misunderstandings. We explain why and how to avoid them.
| Edited transcript with links: https://grammar-girl.simplecast.com/episodes/zero-email/transcript
| Grammarpalooza (Get texts from Mignon!): https://joinsubtext.com/grammar or text "hello" to (917) 540-0876.
| Subscribe to the newsletter for regular updates.
| Watch my LinkedIn Learning writing courses.
| Please take our advertising survey. It helps! https://podsurvey.com/GRAMMAR
| HOST: Mignon Fogarty
| VOICEMAIL: 833-214-GIRL (833-214-4475).
| Grammar Girl is part of the Quick and Dirty Tips podcast network.
| Theme music by Catherine Rannus.
| Grammar Girl Social Media Links: YouTube. TikTok. Facebook. Instagram. LinkedIn. Mastodon.
Grammar Girl here. I’m Mignon Fogarty, your friendly guide to the English language. We talk about writing, history, rules, and other cool stuff. Today, we'll talk about the number zero and how to write better email messages.
by Mignon Fogarty
Zero is a weird number. How can it even be a number when it represents … nothing? Even its origin is tricky, because the first known use of zero as a number in mathematics was in ancient India, but the earlier Babylonians and the Mayans used placeholder values that were kind of like zero.
But whether it seems like a number or not, it is, and in grammatical terms, even though it represents absolutely nothing, we treat it as plural. It's a whole lot of nothing! So if it's been a particularly bad week, you write in your diary that it's been "zero days" since you cried at work, not "zero day" — if you care about grammar at that point.
Now, the spelling I'm going to tell you to use for the plural noun is "zeros" without an E: Z-E-R-O-S.
But true to form, "zero" is a weird one here too, so it's also not that simple. Garner's Modern English Usage says the plural is "zeros," without an E, but the Oxford English Dictionary says the plural is "zeroes," with an E: Z-E-R-O-E-S. Merriam-Webster says it can be either, so I thought it might be a difference between British and American English, but a Google Ngram search limited to British English shows "zeros," without the E, kicking the other form's bootie. It's clearly the dominant spelling.
I hesitate to say the OED is wrong, but at the very least, British writers don't seem to be following its recommendation. So it looks like the best choice no matter where you are is to use the shorter form. Z-E-R-O-S.
But … when it's a verb, as in "She really zeroes in on the problem," it's always the longer form, with the "-es" at the end. At least that one is clear.
Next, when do you use the word versus the numeral? Well, this also varies.
In AP style, you usually spell out the word "zero," like when you're writing "It's going to be below zero tonight" and "I just know I have zero percent chance of getting the lead role in the play," but the AP also says you can write the numeral 0 in technical cases like talking about a car going from 0 to 60 and a promotional financing rate of 0% (in which case you'd use the numeral zero and the percent symbol).
The Chicago Manual of Style also wants you to write out the word "zero" in nontechnical writing, but says to use the numeral zero when you're writing about percents, but to pair it with the word "percent" instead of the symbol, So again … it depends on what style guide you're following.
Now what about pronunciation:
Sometimes people think it’s wrong to pronounce zero as “oh,” but it’s actually OK in certain contexts.
For example, it’s fine — even normal — to say “oh” when you’re reading a series of numbers such as
Of course, we can’t forget agent designations: James Bond (Agent 007).
On the other hand, you pronounce it “zero” when you are talking about math or science. For example, you would say “five minus zero equals five” or that the temperature is “below zero.”
We also have some interesting "zero" phrases. "Zero dark thirty," for example, is military slang for super early in the morning or late at night. If you have to get up at 2:00 AM or 3:00 AM, that's "zero dark thirty." The OED actually has simply "dark thirty" as the original form in 1938. It looks like "zero dark thirty" emerged later, in 1958.
To "zero in" on something also started as a military term during the World War II era. It first meant to set the sight of your gun or missile on a target.
This was apparently a big time for our friend "zero" because that era also gave us the phrase "zero-sum game," which describes a game where there's a set amount of something you can win, like points or money, so if one person gets more, the other person gets less. Poker is a zero-sum game, for example, if there's no house taking a cut. The money or chips just change hands among the players. Serving a pie is also a zero-sum game because there's only so much pie. If I take more, you get less.
And World War II also gives us the phrase "ground zero." (I'm starting to think I should have held onto this topic for Veterans Day.) But "ground zero" emerged in 1946 to describe the site of a nuclear explosion. It wasn't until the 1990s that the use broadened to mean the site of any devastation, disaster, or violent attack.
And this always surprises me: even though "ground zero" refers to a specific place when you use it to describe the site of the September 11 attacks in New York, the AP Stylebook says to keep "ground zero" lowercase in this use. It seems like a proper noun to me, but people just haven't taken to capitalizing it.
And although you'll sometimes hear people say they're going back to "ground zero" when they have to start something from scratch, that's generally considered to be an error. Garner says to stick with "going back to square one."
And I'll end this segment with a personal pet peeve: "zeroscaping." I'm a big fan of xeriscaping, spelled X-E-R-I-S-C-A-P-I-N-G. It comes from a combination of the word "xeric," which means “having scant moisture,” and the word "scape," which in this case refers to a type of land. So xeriscaping is creating a beautiful yard with plants that don't need a lot of water.
According to the OED, the word was coined by the Denver Water Department in 1981. The "xeric" root comes from the Greek prefix "xer-," which means “dry.” And there aren’t many English words that use that "xer-" prefix. Xeroderma is dry skin, xerography is a type of dry printing, xerophagy is eating dry food, and besides "xeriscape" there are just a few others.
But a lot of people seem to call it "zeroscaping," and that kind of bugs me. People are always asking about my pet peeves, and I need to remember to include this one! "Xeriscape" came first, but "zeroscape" is actually a word that landscapers seem to widely use now even though it hasn't made it into dictionaries yet.
Zeroscaping is more extreme than xeriscaping. It uses lots of rocks and gravel or even just dirt and plants that need very little water, like juniper, cactus, and yucca. A zeroscaped yard can be nice too and requires almost no maintenance, but it's not the same thing as a yard that is xeriscaped.
by Valerie Fridland
If you’ve ever received an email that irritated you because of its overly familiar or casual tone, you are not alone. Particularly in contexts involving professional or social distance, the language someone uses in an email can determine how — and whether — the recipient responds.
The key is to understand how your linguistic style plays a role in how you craft your email messages and to realize that we don’t all have the same style – which can be a potential problem when you're emailing someone you don't know very well.
Unlike formal writing which is highly codified and taught in schools, email is a newer form of communication that is more of a hybrid between speech and writing (Baron, 2003). As a result, the “rules” are more fluid and more sensitive to the social context and how we know each other compared to other written contexts.
What this means is that the formality level and politeness we adopt will vary based on the norms and expectations brought in from social reference groups as well as what your goals are for a specific email and with a specific recipient.
For instance, you might have been introduced to someone at a social mixer during a business event. To send a follow up email after the meeting, you have to decide whether you should go with workplace norms, which tend toward formality, or if you should go with a more informal tone since you met the person in a pseudo-social context, i.e., “Mr Smith, So nice to have met you” vs. “John, how’s it going?”
Age differences can also influence what someone thinks would be most appropriate in such a context, potentially leading to culture clash when there is a mismatch between a sender and a receiver’s expectations.
Workplace culture has actually been trending more informal for the past several decades, something not only apparent in the increasing prevalence of business casual dress, but also in the shift toward less hierarchical conversational styles.
This means that younger speakers often prioritize establishing solidarity and equality with their linguistic choices ("Hey, John!") while older speakers might show respect through titles and formal greetings ("Dear Sir…"). Differences in the use of social media and technology can also drive a wedge if, for instance, someone is used to viewing a resume as an attachment versus being directed to Google Docs or LinkedIn to see the information.
While a lot has been made of younger generations being less “polite” than older generations, it's more likely that what's changed is what we view as polite behavior rather than the loss of politeness more generally.
Fortunately for us, linguists have done a lot of research on politeness. The most well-known theory of politeness was first articulated by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson (in 1987) and suggested that people are driven by two different pressures when it comes to formulating polite exchanges.
The first pressure is that we generally want to be liked and admired, something linguists refer to as “positive face.” To address each other’s positive face, we formulate what to say in ways that are meant to make other people feel good and highlight commonality. This would include things like giving compliments, using first names, using inclusive language, and other shows of solidarity and friendship.
The second pressure we feel is toward recognizing what has been termed “negative face.” Paying attention to another’s negative face recognizes the fact that we also have a desire to be respected and not be imposed upon. Courteous language, showing deference, and awareness of another’s time (through apologies or polite forms like hedging) are typical ways people address this pressure.
Thus, the more casual language style that's popular among Gen Z is, at least in part, indicative of the increased attention to solidarity and friendship involved in forms of positive politeness. Older speakers, on the other hand, may feel that attention to negative face, i.e., not causing offense and showing respect, are a greater priority in business settings.
Likewise, although digital natives who have used technology their whole lives may not see directing someone to links for information instead of directly attaching the info as burdensome, it has the potential to feel like an imposition to people who prefer to be able to just get an attachment in the body of an email.
These differences may explain why some emails may come across as disrespectful or lacking etiquette, especially in intergenerational situations. But there is an easy solution: Err on the side of caution.
Research has suggested that polite speech is related to social power, with polite speech forms being more typical of those with less rank. So people with higher status in an interaction may have a greater expectation for politeness markers from people seeking their help or who are in subordinate roles.
So, when emailing someone you don’t know well, especially in the workplace, using a more formal greeting, such as "Ms. X," instead of a first name, is the safest bet, at least at first. Also, although it's fine to include links (i.e., to a resume or profile on LinkedIn), you can also offer to send a digital copy if the recipient would prefer it. Once the initial email is received and responded to, shifting to a less formal style is likely to be better received.
Whether you lean formal or casual, the strength of new hybrid forms of communication like texting and emailing is exactly that they are more fluid and conversational. Being aware of how you might come across to people with a different linguistic style helps ensure your message will be a boon and not a bust.
That segment was written by Valerie Fridland, a professor of linguistics at the University of Nevada in Reno and the author of "Like, Literally, Dude: Arguing for the Good in Bad English." It originally appeared on Psychology Today, and you can find her at valeriefridland.com.
Finally, I have a familect story.
Hi, this is Annette calling from Utah with a familect that comes from the pandemic era. When my husband was first working remotely, every so often he would come out of a Zoom meeting very frustrated about people who were frustrating him and not listening or whatever the case may be. And he said, "Oh, do you remember that point in 'Gilmore Girls' and Michelle says something about people are particularly stupid today. I can't talk to any more of them?"
And then I said, "Oh, yes, yes, yes! I remember that exactly." And he said we need to have an acronym just to make that simple. So we did that: we made an acronym. "People are particularly stupid today." And now one of us can just walk in the room and say "PAPST!" and then walk right back out again, and that's all we need to know. Because that's when someone has frustrated us. And it all goes back to "Gilmore Girls" and Zoom meetings in the pandemic.
Thanks, Annette! That's a great story, and I can definitely see how it would be useful to have shorthand for that feeling.
If you want to share your familect, a word or phrase your family and only your family uses, call the voicemail line at 83-321-4-GIRL. Call from a nice quiet place, and be sure to tell me the story behind your familect because that's always the best part.
Finally, if you're an educator, have you checked out my free LinkedIn Learning courses at your university library. Or if you're not an educator, have you told a friend who is?
I have short videos — with transcripts — about every major topic you'd want to teach your students: commas, hyphens, dashes, commonly confused words, subject-verb agreement, it goes on and on.
And did I mention they are often free through your library?
So as you're thinking about your fall lesson plans, check out my courses and slot in some videos to make your teaching job easier. I'll put a link in the show notes or you can go to my profile on LinkedIn.
Grammar Girl is a Quick and Dirty Tips podcast. Thanks to ad operations specialist, Morgan Christianson; digital operations specialist, Holly Hutchings; director of podcasts, Brannan Goetschius; marketing associate, Davina Tomlin; and audio engineer, Nathan Semes, who is planning a kayaking camping trip down the Allegheny River.
And I’m Mignon Fogarty, better known as Grammar Girl. Remember to look for "Grammar Girl Conversations" in your feed. This Thursday, I have an interview with Karen Yin, author of "The Conscious Style Guide."
That's all. Thanks for listening.
The following references for the "zero" segment did not appear in the audio but are included here for completeness.
"0." Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0 (accessed July 12, 2024).
"Chicago's general rule—zero through one hundred. The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th edition, 9.2. https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/book/ed17/part2/ch09/psec002.html (accessed July 12, 2024).
Mellco Landscaping. "The Difference Between Xeriscape and Zeroscape." Medium. May 3, 2019. https://medium.com/@mellcolandscapingassets/the-difference-between-xeriscape-and-zeroscape-d4f4e20c6000 (accessed July 12, 2024).
"Numbers." Chicago Manual of Style, 17th edition, Q&A. https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Numbers/faq0004.html (accessed July 12, 2024).
"Percent, percentage, percentage points" AP Stylebook. https://www.apstylebook.com/ap_stylebook/percent-percentage-percentage-points?sconvid=6514 (accessed July 12, 2024).
"Xeriscape for Beauty and Conservation." Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority via Archive.org. August 11, 2008. https://web.archive.org/web/20100223044427/http://www.abcwua.org/content/view/73/63/ (accessed July 12, 2024)
"Zero." Etymonline. https://www.etymonline.com/columns/post/zero?old=true (accessed July 12, 2024).
The following references for the "email" segment did not appear in the audio but are included here for completeness.
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. 1989. "Drift and the Evolution of English Style: A History of Three Genres." Language, 65(3), 487–517.
Baron, N. 2002. "Who Sets Email Style? Prescriptivism, Coping Strategies, and Democratizing Communication Access." The Information Society 18 (5): 403–413.
Baron, N. 2003. "Why Email Looks like Speech. Proofreading, Pedagogy and Public Face." In New Media Language, edited by J. Aitchison and D. M. Lewis, 85–94. London:Routledge.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. "Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage." Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press
Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., Sudhof, M., Jurafsky, D., Leskovec, J., & Potts, C. 2013. "A computational approach to politeness with application to social factors." Proceedings of Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. "Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage." Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press
Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., Sudhof, M., Jurafsky, D., Leskovec, J., & Potts, C. 2013. "A computational approach to politeness with application to social factors." Proceedings of Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics