It occurred to me this morning that in common usage (and the way the word is taught to little children), the plural of person is people, even though the words persons is used in slightly different contexts, and, to make things more complicated, people can be singular.
Examples:
(a) I almost hit a person who was crossing Empire Avenue today.
(b) I almost hit some people who were crossing Empire Avenue today.
(c) I almost hit some persons who were crossing Empire Avenue today.
I would never use (c). But is it technically correct? (Even if it is, it sure is ugly.)
You do hear in news reports things like:
(d) A person or persons entered the building under cover of darkness and made off with an undisclosed amount of money.
Why this stiff phrasing?
And from government, things like:
(e) We Canadians are a peaceful people.
Which is singular.
What's up with these two words? Why aren't they completely interchangeable?
in common usage, the plural of person is people
Good question. Is the plural of client clientele? Is the plural of building city?
Is the plural of building city?
C'mon Faldage, play fair. Would you really use (c) in everyday speech? I wouldn't, but can't come up with a good reason why not.
I don't think the plural of person is people. I haven't checked my dictionary, but, shooting from the hip, I expect to find the plural of person to be persons.
But this is still an interesting point of grammar. Would the word people ever take a singular verb? I can't think of an instance when people would take a singular verb--it sounds very grating on my ear in the few sentences I just constructed in my head. Collective nouns have always raised so many interesting problems in my mind, at least.
Best regards,
WordWethePeople
Would the word people ever take a singular verb?Well, that's just the problem. We tend to use a singular article at times, like in (e) above, but the verb bit ("we are") is still plural. Is that not the strangest thing?
Would [I] really use (c) in everyday speech?
I doubt it. My question regarding clientele is to the point, however. It was offered as an answer to a question about irregular plurals but I don't feel that clientele is the plural of client any more than city is the plural of building. Clientele is a group noun that refers to a specific bunch of clients. The matter isn't quite as clear cut with people/persons. Sometimes what sounds funny to us is just a usage we don't use very much. It might be logically correct but that doesn't necessarily make it good colloquial usage. Whether a group noun takes a singular or plural verb is a question of grammar by form vs. grammar by meaning. In this case it seems to be an USn vs. the rest of the (English speaking) world with y'all Canadians an unknown to me on this issue. Prominent in this dispute are such words as team (and the specific names of teams, e.g., Arsenal are expected to ... vs. Duke is expected to ...) and company (and the names of specific companies).
Regarding what Canadians do for collective nouns - the CBC has an article about this on their website which attempts to clarify the style they follow:
http://cbc.ca/news/indepth/words/plurals.htmlI looked up "person" and "people" in Atomica, and the one thing which stood out from their usage notes was that people is plural, and has no corresponding singular. However, in common usage in some situations (as in (a) and (b) above), it behaves as though "person" is its corresponding singular form.
But I distinctly remember being taught by various "authorities" (whoever takes it upon themselves to correct a child's speech) that "The plural of person is people". And in most uses a child encounters, it does work out that way.
"The plural of person is people"
God in three People, blessed Trinity.
Taking the Faldage example:
Arsenal IS a team. That is a good three word statement. The sentence would not read: Arsenal ARE a team.
"The plural of person is people"
God in three People, blessed Trinity
I was taught : God in three Persons - the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost (changed to Holy Spirit recently.)
OED - in a lot of definitions regarding person, says person denotes "rank or character" and also says "an individual of high rank, distinction or importance."
Guess God would qualify under the OED interpretation.
Arsenal IS a team.From BBC Sport
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V37B5579 Arsenal seal an FA Cup semi-final against Middlesbrough after beating Newcastle United 3-0 at Highbury. (Italics mine)
I guess BBC English ain't what it used to be!
To me this is very interesting question, since it is one among the most common mistakes I do in English.
The fact is that in Italian POPOLO is definitely singular, so that I have to force myself everytime I have to use verbs with people.
P.S. This is my post number 199 ! Just one more to be... what? I don't remember, I will see..
Dear emanuela,
Although popolo sounds like people I think that gente is more equivalent to people.
Just for the record. If one were taking a standardized test, multiple choice, and the question was "Which of the following words is the plural of the word person:
a. persons
b. people
c. personae
d. personal"
...the correct answer would be a. persons.
Best regards,
WordWorries
I realize that. But no one in everyday speech says "persons" when they mean "people", that's all I was trying to get at. It just seemed odd to me, when I thought about it a bit the other morning at breakfast!
...the correct answer would be e. whatever the test writer thought was the correct answer.
...the plural of the word person:
a. persons
b. people
c. personae
d. personal
...would be a. persons
As in The Mikado, Act I:
KO. Allow me to present you, Pooh-Bah. These are my three wards. The one in the middle is my bride elect.
POOH. What do you want me to do to them? Mind, I will not kiss them.
KO. No, no, you shan't kiss them; a little bow--a mere nothing--you needn't mean it, you know.
POOH. It goes against the grain. They are not young ladies, they are young persons.
---------
Quite the opposite, it would seem, of the OED definition in which
" person denotes 'rank or character' and also says 'an individual of high rank, distinction or importance.' " a "personage of noble rank and title," as Gilbert had said earlier.
A sense of irony has apparently developed over time.
I think we have to differentiate between two different meanings of people.
1. people = ethnic/tribal group, nation (can be singular or plural) So "we are a people" is as unproblematic as "we are a nation". Rather old-fashioned now perhaps.
A great people will arise in the West.
The peoples who poured over the Rhine were fleeing from invaders further East.
2. people = humans in general (plural)
I think most people agree.
People have been known to plummet to their deaths from high buildings.
Bingley
Let me add a third
3. people seeming to be the plural of person/individual (i.e., not humans in general):
I saw two people on the other side of the street.
Just as Fowler foams at use of "individual" , a case can be made for not using "person" when a more closely descriptive word can be used. "Person" comes from theatrical mask "persona". All the world's a stage, but not all people wear "personas".
I used not to be aware there was a problem here...thought myself comfortable with these words and their forms....oh, happy days.
Bingley and Boronia have summed up "people(s)" in a way that rings bells with me at least. "Person(s)" still bothers me. Gilbert's use of "young persons" rather than "young ladies" or even "young people" may be a fine distinction, but it is one that we recognise and that conveys quite exactly certain information regarding their age and probable lack of discretion. Jeeves would have used the same terminology for the same purpose - to convey a slightly warning note; to imply a measure of unpredictability.
On a different note, a phrase one hears commonly used in police statements is: "...committed by a person or persons unknown", which seems more correct than "...by one or more unknown people" (you can't have "one people" - at least not in this context), but would you say "...by two or more persons unknown" or "...by two or more unknown people", or is either usage equally good? Come to think of it, why don't the police simply say "...by an unknown number of people" and leave it at that?
My head hurts.
why don't the police simply say "...by an unknown number of people" and leave it at that?
I think there are two unknowns in "person or persons unknown" -- the number of people and, more important, the identity of the perpetrators - having said that, perhaps we could modify your suggestion to "an unknown number of unknown/unidentified people" -- hmm, all of a sudden, "person or persons unknown" almost sounds elegant
Many police blotters refer to "perps".
>A person or persons entered the building under cover of darkness and made off with an undisclosed amount of money.
Why this stiff phrasing?
I am going to surmise here. Part of it is the pseudointellectual bent, people trying to sound smarter than they are. And cops are pretty well known for doing stuff like this. I saw a police report about an auto accident in which the cop reported that the victim's foot was decapitated.
Anyway, there may be a legal reason for saying person or persons unknown. If I report that a person entered a building and stole something and later I arrest two people, the defense attorney may try to argue that I've charged too many people.
Similarly, if I report that two people pulled off a burglary and later arrest only one, the defense may similarly try to put doubt in the jury's mind.
Again, this is surmise on my part.
TEd
Many police blotters refer to "perps".
Not in the UK they don't!
Many police blotters refer to "perps".
Not in the UK they don't!
There are many police blotters that are not in the UK.
No, dxb, I think you missed the nice distinction between a [young] lady and a [young] person. Or a gentleman and a person. You must be too young to know about this. It's not a matter of age, discretion or predictability. It's a matter of class (pronounced clahss, in the Pom manner).
In the olden days (up to the 1930s maybe) the term "lady" or "gentleman" had quite a precise meaning, and it had to do with social class. The upper classes were not about to recognize a pleb as an equal, and those who served the upper classes had to be particularly careful not to appear to be recognizing a female person as a lady when she was not. Hence, if the butler needed to inform Madam that someone like Eliza Doolittle desired to speak with her, he might say something like, "Madam, there is a young person who wishes to speak with you." He certainly would not say a young 'lady'. That was what WoDoc was getting across in his Mikado example. These conventions are now as dead as the dodo almost everywhere, although I suppose there may be a few Col. Blimps and their female counterparts still holding the upper class fort in nursing homes in remote parts of Britain.
Well – no, not quite old enough, nearly but not quite – often feel as though I am mind you. But yes, your explanation is so logical that I am convinced it is correct. Something learned today!
Out of date expressions such as "young persons" become more interesting when one learns about the society that found them useful. The arrogance and self concern of that "clahss" of the between-the-wars society is wonderfully displayed in the opening sequences of the film Gosford Park, where the maidservant is kept in the pouring rain by Maggie Smith with no recognition of her as a human being (or "person" even).
No, I don't think we have any Col. Blimps of that pattern left here now - not even in Budleigh Salterton, which was reputed to be their "elephant's graveyard". There is still snobbishness, but now it is connected to what you do for a living, and I think it is international.
A line I use once in a while (but VERY carefully, mind you):
So what's a lady like you doing in a nice place like this?
A friend, knowing I was interested in the person/people question, found the entry and commentary below that I paste here:
"I 'rediscovered' a book--Index To English, Seventh Edition, 1982, by a couple of folks named Ebbitt--seems they've been doing this book since 1939. Here's their entry for
people, persons
People has long been used as a collective noun referring to a group, but as recently as the early part of this century, it was regarded as nonstandard when used with numerical quantifiers as the plural of person, as in "Five people are here." Though formal usage still tends to prefer persons, people is now thoroughly established in all plural uses.... Not surprisingly, people-persons is a case of divided usage.
Just for the record,
Wordwind
I notice that, when commenting on crimes or accidents, US law-enforcement spokesmen tend to use
individual. ("One or more individuals were involved in...")
As for
perp, it often shows up in the phrase
perp walk:
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/newsreleases/99mn003?opendocument
when commenting on crimes or accidents, US law-enforcement spokesmen tend to use individual
Depending on factors not worth reviewing here, the term "person" can include an entity other than an individual, such as a corporation. I suspect that the police jargon arose to distinguish an individual person from a corporate (or other type of) person.
Sparteye has the right of it ... police persons{chuckle} tend to talk about 'individual(s") because it is part of police jargon and includes both male and female.
Person or persons is used so as not to give any indication whether or not the police are looking for one person or a bunch.
The cops are just trying not to give anything away to the bad guys/gals.
When I was covering police beat (1960s & '70s) the term perpetrators was common in CopTalk - because it was gender neutral and looked important in reports -- when writing up police stories I used person. I did not want people to forget that whatever actions were being taken a person was involved. Too easy to objectify a human being by using perpetrator. About the time of TV's "Hill Street Blues" was first time I heard "perp" -- as a pejorative to indicate contempt. The derisive meaning seems to have become most accepted now-a-days.
the term "person" can include an entity other than an individual, such as a corporation
Too true. We have a grant program where I work, and one of the criteria includes bonus points for applications submitted by a "real" person as opposed to a corporation, partnership, LLC, etc. To clarify the rule we had to use the term "natural person". I hope we don't get any applications from any "unnatural people"!
Dear Flatlander:
Your use of "natural person" for potential applicants made me smile. I first conjured up persons aux naturelles--and then persons behaving in unaffected ways. I think your "natural person" could lead to more confusion than clarity.
Why not "actual person" or "real person" or something else? The "natural person" just sounds commical!
Best regards,
WordWiseacre
Why not "actual person" or "real person" or something else? The "natural person" just sounds commical!
I'm with you, WW. The "natural person" language was suggested by our counsel and the Tax Department, so we went with it. We joked about what criteria we might use to determine if an applicant was "natural" enough to get the bonus points -- eats only organic foods, wears no synthetic fabrics, etc.
The persons/people argument has been around for at least thirty years. It was discussed in English classes when I was at school. I seem to remember that the general consensus was that there's been a drift in the meaning of both words with "persons" making way for "people" through common usage.
Think of the looks you'd get if you announced that there are "two thousand persons in the audience". The temptation would to be to ask what the rest are!
In Québec, the word persons is still used to denote more than one person though it is being replace by people (eg. The car is only big enough for two persons. There were two persons on each team)
I think it is still hanging on here because in French we use the words personne and personnes.
we had to use the term "natural person"
[Aretha]
YOU MAKE ME FEEL LIKE A NAT-UR-AL PEEERSONNNNNNN!!!!
[/Aretha]
I just know that this is going to be stuck in my head all night.
[Aretha]
YOU MAKE ME FEEL LIKE A NAT-UR-AL PEEERSONNNNNNN!!!!
[/Aretha]
I just know that this is going to be stuck in my head all night.UHHH.......Sparteye?
I think that should be:
[Aretha]
YOU MAKE ME FEEL LIKE A NAT-UR-AL WOOOOO-MMMMAAAAAAANN!!!!
[/Aretha]Yeah???????
NAT-UR-AL WOOOOO-MMMMAAAAAAANN!!!!
That's Shakespearean 'natural' presumably, meaning fool? ;)
Naturally, mav.
[but of course, with such meaning the phrase "natural woman" is oxymoronic]
Hey, guys, I resemble that remark....I think?
Well, I am blonde!