Why does "depth" have to be in its plural form in these sentences?

Question

Why is there an "s" after the word "depth" in these sentences? Is it grammatically wrong if I remove the "s"?

Alvin can dive to ocean depths of 20,000 feet.

(For context, Alvin is the name of a submersible.)

At the time, America was in the depths of the Depression.

It's not the most common format - we usually say to a depth of* [number]* OR to depths* [of] up to [number]. But ...can dive to an ocean depth of...* slightly "odd" to me anyway with the article. For some reason, if that "particularizing" article is present, I find myself thinking Why mention "ocean" - what other* kinds of depth on Earth are that deep?* Which I don't really think when there's no article. — FumbleFingers, Dec 12 '23 at 13:04
We should call this the oceanic plural. We speak of tropical waters and choppy seas. Who knows what species remain to be discovered in the ocean's depths? — TimR on some device, Dec 12 '23 at 13:23
Does this answer your question? 1) "My weight is 150 pounds"; 2) "The runner's speed was 6 kilometers per hour" — Are "weight" and "speed" countable or not? — Andy Bonner, Dec 12 '23 at 16:37
Because you can say: to an ocean depth of x feet or ocean depths of x feet. They mean the same thing. — Lambie, Dec 12 '23 at 21:28
@Lambie thanks for that, but I actually would like to know the reason why they mean the same thing. Is this just a matter of stylistic choice? — hhhh, Dec 13 '23 at 15:46
There is no reason. The two forms are: to a depth of x OR to depths of x. Sometimes there just isn't an explanation. — Lambie, Dec 13 '23 at 15:49

score 2 · Answer 1 · answered Dec 12 '23 at 13:03

2

Beacuse you are talking generally there is more than one possible dive, but it wouldn't be wrong to say "Alvin can dive to an ocean depth of 20,000 feet." as you are giving the maximum depth as a specific value.

If you were talking about a specific dive you would have to use the singular ... "Alvin dived to an ocean depth of 20,000 feet.", "ocean depths" would be wrong.

In the second sentance using the singular would be weird. It means the lowest part of the depression, rather than a specific moment. For that you would need to say something like "the lowest point of the depression".

answered Dec 12 '23 at 13:03

timchessish

1,733
1
8

Singular isn't that weird - it accounts for maybe a third of all usages. – FumbleFingers Dec 12 '23 at 13:09
"the depth of the Depression" does jar with me slightly. Maybe "weird" was a bit strong. I wanted imply that it would feel odd without being specifically wrong. – timchessish Dec 12 '23 at 14:09
I don't really have a preference myself. But as you can see from that chart (which should all be for the relevant context, since NGrams is case-sensitive for *Depression*), in the early years the singular was "less uncommon" than it is today. Effectively, it's been on the decline for decades. So I guess that implies you've got your finger more "on the linguistic pulse" than me! – FumbleFingers Dec 12 '23 at 14:19
It's so strange that you all are criticizing the use of these sentences, because the first sentence is from an English-learning book written by English-speaking people, and the second sentence is from Cambridge dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/in-the-depths-of. I guess the use of "depth" or "depths" is more based on style then? – hhhh Dec 13 '23 at 15:44

score 0 · Answer 2 · answered Dec 12 '23 at 21:11

The use of "depths" in the plural can imply varying measurements or also different acts of measurement with the same result.

At the time, America was in the depths of the Depression.

Here, "in" suggests a region containing many points. It refers to a stretch of time when the Depression was bad but could include variation in the actual "depth." The plural is definitely preferred here.

At the time, America was at the depth of the Depression.

Here, "at" suggests one point in time, when the the Depression was at its worst. The singular is strongly preferred here.

Alvin can dive to a depth of 20,000 feet.
The Concorde could fly to a height of 20,000 feet.
Electric scooters can go a distance of 10 miles.

These three sentences are neutral in tone and typical of language emphasizing accuracy and talking about the maximum capabilities of the vehicles.

Alvin can dive through ocean depths.
The Concord could fly over mountain heights.
Electric scooters can go far distances.

These sentences are fine grammatically and semantically. The first two, in using depths and heights as count nouns, have slightly evocative, almost poetic language, not as appropriate for scientific language. Using "depths" and "heights" in the plural is something specific to these particular words, but suggests multiple occasions, different locations, or different measurements.

Alvin can dive to ocean depths of 20,000 feet.
The Concorde could fly to mountain heights of 20,000 feet.
Electric scooters can go far distances of 10 miles.

These three sentences combine the structures of the first two sets. They are grammatically and semantically fine; however, there is a minor clash in tone, especially for the first two. It is hard to stress evocativeness and accuracy at the same time. There is also a clash for all three in suggesting a precise and vague measurement for the same dimension in the same sentence. If you deleted, "ocean" "mountain," and "far," they would read better as an attempt to refer to multiple trips of any length with one maximum measurement for any given trip.

Why does "depth" have to be in its plural form in these sentences?

2 Answers2