ESL General English Grammar Questions

Re: Human, humans?

CalifJim — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 02:41:30 GMT

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.

Re: Human, humans?

jeff_999 — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:55:18 GMT

Thank you, Dave. I got it

Re: Human, humans?

taiwandave — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:50:49 GMT

'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.

Re: Human, humans?

jeff_999 — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:51:17 GMT

Thank you Mr. Micawber, it couldn't be clearer.

But, as for my second question, I have to add some,
" Let's say in this context,
'Collagen supports the earflaps and the tip of the nose in humans'.
After in , we have to use humans, instead of human, because we need plural form here, right? But what about 'in humankind'? Is it OK? You know, humankind seems to represents all human beings (kinda like poetry vs. poem, or machinery vs. machine) ."

I am sorry if I didn't make myself understood, but I did try to explain more clearly. Hope you can understand.

Re: Human, humans?

Mister Micawber — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:33:32 GMT

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.

Human, humans?

jeff_999 — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:53:12 GMT

Now I'm so confused about these words, human, humans, human being, and human beings. What's the difference betwee them? 'Humans' and 'human beings' are just the plural forms of 'human' and 'human being'?

And again, please tell me which one is right, 'in humans', 'in human beings' or 'in human', or even 'in the human'?

Are both 'we are human' and 'we are humans' correct? If so, what about 'we are human being' (please note there's no s tailing after 'being')?