Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 days agoHome Depotslrpnk.netimagemessage-square126fedilinkarrow-up1873arrow-down113
arrow-up1860arrow-down1imageHome Depotslrpnk.netTrack_Shovel@slrpnk.net to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 days agomessage-square126fedilink
minus-squareTropicalDingdong@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down6·1 day agonope. it’s the plural.
minus-squareBluesF@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up5·1 day 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-up1·edit-21 day 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 hours 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.