These sentences seem correct:
Some English common nouns, like sheep and deer, have an 'uninflected plural'; the singular and plural forms are identical.... What these cases seem to have in common is that the creatures concerned can be treated as a mass -- the individual animals aren't important. So these nouns are in a sense halfway between count nouns and mass nouns.... The names of a number of wild animals are like this for some speakers, but not for others, so a big-game hunter might say I shot three lion, or There are elephant in those trees.
Is that the case? As the author says, they're correct if you're a big-game hunter . Are you a big-game hunter?
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
zuotengdazuoThese sentences seem correct:1.The hunter shot three lion.2.There are some elephant in the forest.3.My favorite animals are elephant.Is that the case?As the author says, they're correct if you're a big-game hunter. Are you a big-game hunter?
Our old friend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plural says: ‘As a general rule, game or other animals are often referred to in the singu
zuotengdazuoWhat do you think of the sentence? Do you think they are correct if they appear in a sporting context?Yes, I do; however, I myself am never in that kind of sporting context, so I never use them.
zuotengdazuo Thank you. I see. I think if you were working on a novel in which you conceived a character who was a hunter, then you might write those sentences as the hunter's lines.Exactly!
zuotengdazuoSo so generally speaking, as long as it is in a sporting context, you can say the sentences in question.In the context of blood sports. In general, using the singular is odd and jarring, so people would generally say lions and elephants.