Hi! Is it possible to say the following sentences?
-We are both Catholics./ We are both Protestants.
-We are all Catholics./ We are all Protestants.
-We are both Catholic./ We are both Protestant.
-We are all Catholic./ We are all Protestant.
-We became Catholic./ We became Protestant.
-We remained Catholic./ We remained Protestant.
I wonder if âCatholicâ and âProtestantâ are all âadjectivesâ in the latter-half cases. In these cases, you donât have to worry about the number of ânounsâ: a Catholic or Catholics, a Protestant or Protestants.
There are examples with both the noun and the adjective online. I was wondering whether the two forms are both possible.
The following sentences occurred to me:
I became a Catholic.
You became a Catholic.
Each of us is a Catholic.
Both of us are Catholics.
We are both Catholics.
ă°ăŹăąă ă»ă°ăȘăŒăł(Graham Greene)ăă«ăœăȘăăŻăźäœćź¶ăšăăŠæćă§ăăăăæ„æŹăźäœćź¶ă§ăăé è€ćšäœ(ShĆ«saku EndĆ)ăšăăäșșăŻăă«ăœăȘăăŻă§ăăă
âMost of his[Endoâs] characters struggle with complex moral dilemmas, and their choices often produce mixed or tragic results. His work may often be compared to that of Graham Greene. In fact, Greene himself labeled EndĆ one of the finest writers currently alive at the time.â
(Edited)
Yes, both are possible.
So, do all my examples sound OK?
I always use the singular, but after a bit of googling Iâve come to the conclusion that it changes by region.
In my mind, there is a bit of a negative, pejorative, aspect to the plural.
I donât know if you can say âWe each became a Catholic.â
When you say âweâ, the existence of âtheyâ is sometimes presupposed. Is this related to your negative feelings about the plural forms: Catholics and Protestants?
I live in a town where there is animosity between Catholics and Protestants, but I was surprised David has negative connotations with the plural of the words. They are neutral terms to me in either singular or plural. I canât think of any examples where I would feel differently about a word from the singular to the plural.
All you sentences are correct.
âCatholicâ and âProtestantâ may be nouns (and so can be singular or plural) or adjectives (as in âthe Catholic Churchâ)
âWe each became âŠâ describes the actions of two individuals. The action in each case was to âbecome A Catholicâ.
âWe each became a Catholicâ is more correct.
Alternatively, you could say âWe became Catholicsâ.
I imagine âWe became Catholicâ is as correct as saying âWe became Muslimâ, though it just sounds odd 
The noun and adjective forms are seemingly interchangeable in terms of being or becoming a denomination or denominational, although âremainedâ seems to go best with the adjective form (Catholic/Protestant).
Here is a dialogue, using examples of each:
Thank you for your dialogue, brucenator! I have found few examples with the noun after remain, I guess the adjective works better after that verb.
I have another question about âatheistâ and âBuddhistâ. I was told that âatheistâ is essentially used as a noun.Some argue that the adjective (as in"I am atheist") does not sound natural and could be confused with âI am a theistâ when pronounced. However, there seems to be disagreement among native speakers.
As far as âBuddhistâ is concerned, is it more similar to âCatholicâ and âProtestantâ or to âatheistâ?
Atheist, agnostic, buddhist, hindu etc. all operate as nouns or adjectives in the same way as Protestant and Catholic. I would not use the word âbecameâ as frequently as in the above examples. Changing oneâs religion is usually a conscious choice, and âbecameâ suggests a more passive process. The verb to use is âto convertâ. For example, âHe was protestant but when he married a catholic girl he converted.â. Or âAfter living in India for 5 years she converted to Hinduismâ.
In contrast to what others have said, there is no negative connotation to the plural, and âWe became Catholicâ does sound perfectly natural.
HTH.
Sorry for the double post, but I thought I would quickly add something.
It is very unlikely that âI am atheistâ would be confused with âI am a theistâ, even though they sound very similar. Simply because virtually no one says the latter, âI believe in Godâ would be the much more usual phrase. âTheistâ does have a more specific meaning, but is a more technical term used in philosophy or theology. If someone did say âI am a theistâ it would almost certainly be made clear from context that they did not say âatheistâ.
Whereas âCatholicâ or âProtestantâ can serve as adjectives or nouns, âatheistâ is a noun. The adjective form is âatheistic.â So it would be more proper to say, âI am an atheist,â rather than âI am atheist,â although both forms are used. It is not unheard of for someone to use âatheistâ as if it were an adjective. For example:
Theism is a position of belief: a belief system, based on faith, in a creator god that intervenes in nature and sustains a personal relationship with its creatures. Atheism is a position of disbelief, based on lack of credible evidence. If you are not convinced that a god â that is, a magical, anthropomorphic immortal â really exists, then you are atheist. Contrary to popular opinion, that does not mean that you are taking a position of knowledge: there is no god; but rather reason: I have found no credible evidence to convince me to believe your claim that a god exists.
I agree with neofight78 that it would be highly unlikely that âI am atheistâ would be confused with âI am a theist,â not only because of context or usage, but because with âatheistâ the stress is on the A: 'a the ist; whereas with âa theist,â the stress is on the THE: 'the ist. In other words, both âatheistâ and âtheistâ have stress on the first syllable.
Just like âCatholicâ or âProtestant,â âBuddhistâ can serve as either an adjective or a noun, so you may hear, âI am Buddhistâ or âI am a Buddhist.â Same goes for agnostic: âI am agnosticâ or âI am an agnostic.â
Iâm afraid I canât agree with that definition. In common parlance an atheist is one who does not believe in God, which is the opposite of someone who does. Normally in this context God is a monotheistic concept. That is all there is to it.
Any questions of who needs to prove what to whom or otherwise, or distinguishing between belief and disbelief, is straying into the realm of debate about God and his existence or lack thereof (and of course how one might define said God). Also many peopleâs opinion on both âsidesâ are not based on any considerations of proof or evidence at all, by which I mean they approach the question from a different angle if at all.
I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with brucenatorâs opinions, rather I am pointing out that he is redefining âatheistâ to suit a particular point of view, thereby entering into the realm of debate about the subject and is outside the scope of any everyday definition of the word âatheistâ.
Good point about stress though!
Edit: Ah just re-read your post and realised you were quoting an example of someone using atheist as an adjective. The fact that the quote was a definition confused me!
An atheist is a person who does not believe (i.e. is not convinced) that a god or gods exists. This includes, but is not limited to, the concept of a monotheistic male God with a capital G, or some interpretation thereof. The definition of âgodâ that all religions share is some sort of immortal being that has human characteristics and magical powers. So I think the statement: âIf you are not convinced that a god â that is, a magical, anthropomorphic immortal â really exists, then you are atheistâ is as straightforward a definition of âatheistâ as you can get. If anything, it is clarifying, not âredefiningâ atheist. It is not limiting the definition to âone who does not believe in God,â implying not only belief in a particular God, but reflecting a particular mindset, which is clear when you say âGod and âhisâ existence.â Think about it.
I agree that when you get into the realm of who needs to prove what to whom, or what constitutes evidence, or that the only god that really counts is a monotheistic God and âhisâ (male) existence, or from what angle a person approaches belief or non-belief, that that is straying into the realm of debate.
Perhaps it is the description of what the position of atheism is based on â around which the example is framed â with which you disagree. But I think the sentence which actually defines âatheistâ is clear and straightforward. Theism asks the question, âDo you believe (are you convinced) that a god (or gods) really exists?â If you are not convinced that a god really exists, then you are an atheist. How is that âredefining âatheistâ to suit a particular point of viewâ?