Can "fire" be plural? Can I say:

Do fires cause cancer?

  • 1
    Fires would seem to be house fires, building fires, and the like. You never know what's burning in a fire; for example, certain fire retardants have been shown to be carcinogenic when they burn, and ash itself contains carcinogens. – Gnawme Jan 12 '12 at 20:39
  • 1
    But it seems a bit terse to say Fires cause cancer when what's actually meant seems to be Inhaling smoke and fumes from burning material causes cancer. That would include smoking tobacco, for instance. – John Lawler Jan 12 '12 at 21:07

One of the meanings of fire is a single conflagrative event. The word fires describes several such events. So, yes, Do fires cause cancer? is a grammatically conventional English sentence.

  • Would you agree that the said sentence is correct? – lukas Jan 12 '12 at 20:23
  • 1
    @lukas: I have edited my answer to say so. – Barrie England Jan 12 '12 at 20:24
  • 1
    Alternately, you could use "Does fire cause cancer?" to refer to the concept of fire and I suspect that you'd get the same meaning unless you're specifically exploring the effects of experiencing multiple fires. – Sean Duggan Jan 12 '12 at 22:09
  • 1
    The use of the plural is extremely significant here, considering that the plural has a unique definition. The intention seems to be to state that such things as 'incidents of fire' (major fire), 'forest fires', etc., would cause cancer. Not any fire in general. – Kris Jan 13 '12 at 5:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.