Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 年前Home Depotslrpnk.netimagemessage-square124fedilinkarrow-up1910arrow-down113
arrow-up1897arrow-down1imageHome Depotslrpnk.netTrack_Shovel@slrpnk.net to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 年前message-square124fedilink
minus-squareViking_Hippie@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 年前Pretty sure that’s Italian for genre. Or a weird typo/autocorrect error/both 😁
minus-squarecelsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down1·edit-21 年前deleted by creator
minus-squareBluesF@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up5·1 年前The 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-21 年前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.
minus-squareBluesF@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 年前Still wrong because they are refering to an individual “species” of image, so it would be genus not genera.
Pretty sure that’s Italian for genre. Or a weird typo/autocorrect error/both 😁
deleted by creator
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.