1

Man is the only animal that can make use of fire. (0)

I want to replace "man" with other word.

Human beings are the only animal that can make use of fire. (1)

The human race is the only animal that can make use of fire. (2)

Human kind is the only animal that can make use of fire. (3)

Are they grammatically correct? Are their meanings the same as (0)'s?

  • the third one: "Human kind" should be replaced with "The mankind" – sotondolphin Nov 3 '15 at 8:57
  • 1
    @sotondolphin I think that he meant 'humankind' which is actually a word. I just searched it up myself. – CipherBot Nov 3 '15 at 9:01
  • 1
    @sotondolphin No, most of such words with 'man' are now getting neutral with 'human/person'. Another example: businessperson and not 'man'. – Maulik V Nov 3 '15 at 9:49
  • Better choice if I were to write: "Humans are the only ones who can make use of fire" Why separate 'animals' for this universal truth? – Maulik V Nov 3 '15 at 9:51
1

Human beings are the only animal that can make use of fire. (1)

Changing 'animal' to 'animals' would make it a bit tidier as you'd have two plurals. You could also say "Humans are the only animals that can make use of fire."

The human race is the only animal that can make use of fire. (2)

Looks a bit odd, as the human race isn't something you'd normally refer to as an animal, but still understandable.

Human kind is the only animal that can make use of fire. (3)

Humankind is a single word, but otherwise this looks OK.

All of these mean the same as your original sentence, but (1) is the one I would use myself.

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.