Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 3 months agoHome Depotslrpnk.netimagemessage-square124fedilinkarrow-up1908arrow-down112cross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up1896arrow-down1imageHome Depotslrpnk.netTrack_Shovel@slrpnk.net to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 3 months agomessage-square124fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-squareTropicalDingdong@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down7·3 months agonope. it’s the plural.
minus-squareBluesF@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up5·3 months agoThe plural of genre is genres. The singular of genera is genus… Which might make sense here, but not as a plural.
minus-squareTropicalDingdong@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·edit-23 months agoNope. Its genera in this context because they are discussing it as species. They are pluralizing genus. Its a reference to it being a new “species” of image. Your assumption of the word they are pluralizing was wrong.
minus-squareBluesF@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·3 months agoStill wrong because they are refering to an individual “species” of image, so it would be genus not genera.
nope. it’s the plural.
The plural of genre is genres. The singular of genera is genus… Which might make sense here, but not as a plural.
Nope. Its genera in this context because they are discussing it as species.
They are pluralizing genus. Its a reference to it being a new “species” of image.
Your assumption of the word they are pluralizing was wrong.
Still wrong because they are refering to an individual “species” of image, so it would be genus not genera.