0
Jeff_999 Posted 21 years ago
Grammar
Human, humans?
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')?
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')?
Top answer
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.
- 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.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
14 Answers
0
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
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
00
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 repre
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 repre
00
'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
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
00
0
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.
Just thought I'd throw that in.
00
She was absolutely 100% correct grammatically.
"human" is an adjective.
"human being" is a noun.
Examples:
"You should be more human."
"You and I are human beings."
"That particular human being is among the most human of all beings."
"human" is an adjective.
"human being" is a noun.
Examples:
"You should be more human."
"You and I are human beings."
"That particular human being is among the most human of all beings."
00
These words are sometimes used in certain set constructions, to the exclusion of all other words. For example:
"He can't treat us this way. We're human beings, not dogs." ("Humans" cannot be used here.)
"Don't ever call me again. A woman is a human being, not a robot you can program." ("Human" cannot be used here.)
"About 20,000 years ago, humans first leaned how to
"He can't treat us this way. We're human beings, not dogs." ("Humans" cannot be used here.)
"Don't ever call me again. A woman is a human being, not a robot you can program." ("Human" cannot be used here.)
"About 20,000 years ago, humans first leaned how to
00
On average animals are more civilized than humans.
is it a correct sentence
is it a correct sentence
00
On average animals are more civilized than humans.
Is it a correct sentence?
Email Removed
Is it a correct sentence?
Email Removed
00
How do you decide that? I still can't conclude the rule of "human/s" and "human being/s". Why can't we use "human beings" on the fifth example? And why is it plural?
0
Related Questions