Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 days agoHome Depotslrpnk.netimagemessage-square113fedilinkarrow-up1840arrow-down112
arrow-up1828arrow-down1imageHome Depotslrpnk.netTrack_Shovel@slrpnk.net to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 days agomessage-square113fedilink
minus-squareViking_Hippie@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 day agoPretty sure that’s Italian for genre. Or a weird typo/autocorrect error/both 😁
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-223 hours 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-up1·41 minutes agoStill 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 😁
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.