Human, humans?

Hi Jeff,

All these words and phrases are OK in proper context. As nouns, human(s) and human being(s) are virually interchangeable, with the former perhaps used more in contrast with the 'lower' animals while the latter may be used more in discussing our humanity.

As an adjective, only 'human' will work, of course (as it is, I suppose, in 'human being', actually, even though we do not use the counter-term 'non-human being')

So:

'we are human'-- 'human' is a predicate adjective, a subject complement.
'we are humans'-- 'humans' is a noun complement of the subject.
'we are human beings' -- ditto.
X 'we are human being' -- bad grammar.

'Collagen supports the earflaps and the tip of the nose in humans'.

This above is correct. "Human" is a countable noun, so to generalize you must use the plural form. Substituting "humankind" would be grammatically correct but a stylistic mistake. Why? Because it is a rather grandiose-sounding word, the semantic equivalent to "mankind". It would sound odd in a sentence that is making a specific point about the human body.

The best pointer on English writing style, for both native and non-native speakers, is to use the simplest possible words that will fit into your sentence. If you do this, you will seldom go wrong.

My English teacher once said that "human" should never be used as a noun. Only "human being" was acceptable. But that was a million years ago.

Just thought I'd throw that in.