Nouns that exist only in the plural

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vanadium 50
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the peculiarities of English nouns that exist only in plural form, such as "trousers," "scissors," and "wages." Participants explore categories for these nouns, including clothing, tools, and wealth. They note that some nouns, like "species" and "series," can be both singular and plural, while others, like "physics," are treated as singular despite ending in "s." The conversation highlights grammatical nuances, such as the treatment of collective nouns and the evolution of language, referencing historical uses and changes in meaning over time. The dialogue also touches on the pluralization of Latin-derived words and the complexities of English grammar, with examples illustrating how context can alter the interpretation of singular and plural forms. Overall, the thread reflects a deep dive into linguistic structure and the quirks of the English language.
  • #31
Vanadium 50 said:
Physics seems to me a singular word that ends in s: mess, cutlass, albatross. Since there is only one Physics, there is no plural form.

Species seems to me a word that does not change its form when pluralized: deer, moose, sheep, aircraft.
One could choose to say "specie", but many listeners might not be accustomed. "This specie is,..." at least this feels like it works.

Does an ending of word with "s" always need to be thought to be plural? I am guessing that for Physics and Mathematics, these are organized collections of related concepts so they are used in their plural. Maybe somebody knows how the linguistics works on that. (There's another one: "Linguistics", looking as if plural.)
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32
symbolipoint said:
Does an ending of word with "s" always need to be thought to be plural?

Nope. Octopus, bus, dress, mess, news, sass, albatross, cutlass, mass, class, lens
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron and BillTre
  • #33
Vanadium 50 said:
  • one does not say "a pair of bellows".
But how about "gallows"?
Nope, you don't say "a pair of gallows" either. :oldlaugh:

EDIT: unless, of course, there are side by side gallows o0)
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre
  • #34
Vanadium 50 said:
even though one does not say "a pair of bellows".
Unless you have two of them.
bellows.png
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre and PeroK
  • #35
Vanadium 50 said:
Nope. Octopus, bus, dress, mess, news, sass, albatross, cutlass, mass, class, lens
The important ones in that list are "news" and "lens".
 
  • #36
symbolipoint said:
The important ones in that list are "news" and "lens".

Why are they more important than, say, "mess"?
 
  • #37
back to physics and physic
A physics is a strong laxative, "It went through him like a physic."
 
  • #38
Just realized on my lunch break in front of me. Sometimes genus of an animal, like triceratops. There is no triceratop.

“That triceratops died in a lake.”
”Those triceratops died in a lake.”

Tagging a noun that only has plural form with a pronoun like that or those can help a reader determine (or qualify) whether it’s plural or singular.

Sure there’s more.
7A644A6D-708C-40FD-A027-B376C8C43755.jpeg
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
  • #39
Fervent Freyja said:
Just realized on my lunch break in front of me.

How long have you been having fossils for lunch?
 
  • Haha
Likes DrClaude
  • #40
Vanadium 50 said:
Why are they more important than, say, "mess"?
The ending "s" type sound was not meant to indicate plural for some words. If you really wanted to know, you need to ask a linguist. The use of the double-s on some words in English had some special spelling history. The answer to the question MUST come from a linguist or someone with that kind of study.
 
  • #41
After reading post #38, now it is clearer than some words ending in the s or having the s type sound was not mean as plural.

But about triceratops, is that both plural AND singular, or do you form the plural by saying, triceratopses?
 
  • #42
Vanadium 50 said:
Why are they more important than, say, "mess"?
symbolipoint said:
The use of the double-s on some words in English

So that's the distinction you are drawing?

"Lens" comes from the Latin pretty much unchanged. "News" was originally plural ("new things") but evolved into the form we have today. "Class" began as Latin ("classis") but with more modification than "lens". "Lass" is Middle English coming from Old Norse languages.

I don't see a good reason to separate "lens" and "news" from the others.
 
  • #43
Vanadium 50 said:
So that's the distinction you are drawing?

"Lens" comes from the Latin pretty much unchanged. "News" was originally plural ("new things") but evolved into the form we have today. "Class" began as Latin ("classis") but with more modification than "lens". "Lass" is Middle English coming from Old Norse languages.

I don't see a good reason to separate "lens" and "news" from the others.
I was not sure. I said, a linguist should say.
 
  • #44
Vanadium 50 said:
How long have you been having fossils for lunch?

Nice and crunchy!
 
  • Haha
Likes Fervent Freyja
  • #45
Vanadium 50 said:
How long have you been having fossils for lunch?
BillTre said:
Nice and crunchy!

Plenty of minerals!
 
  • Like
Likes Bystander and BillTre
  • #46
Vanadium 50 said:
How long have you been having fossils for lunch?

Hahah. Have been switching out my full time job for about a month now. 🤯 The library is one of the few places I can get real peace and quiet!
 
  • #47
symbolipoint said:
But about triceratops, is that both plural AND singular, or do you form the plural by saying, triceratopses?

My dictionaries say "triceratopses". But it's not a word that needs to be pluralized often.
 
  • #48
Vanadium 50 said:
In what sense? As gerunds?
Sure, as gerunds; but if one classifies predicate adjectives with nouns:

Her earning potential is excellent.
He lost his last belonging.
 
  • #49
Her earning potential is excellent.

I would call this a participle and not a singular noun.

He lost his last belonging.

I thought you were going to say "Belonging is a feeling important to today's teenagers", which is why I brought up gerunds. I think I agree that this is a valid, if unusual, use of the singular "belonging", although "He lost all his belongings" would be a more common way to express it.
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron
  • #50
Vanadium 50 said:
My dictionaries say "triceratopses". But it's not a word that needs to be pluralized often.

Well, I’m not going to use triceratopses just as I’m not going to use the word trousers in a conversation. That’s just weird.

I’m going to keep using words like “gonna” because it peeves some people... 🤣
 
  • #51
.
Vanadium 50 said:
But how about "gallows"?
Stretching the functional effective properties it's considered a dangling

participle. . . . :eek: Well that was just. . . sic ! . :frown:

.
 
  • Haha
Likes Mark44
  • #52
Vanadium 50 said:
I don't know what that means. Certainly one says "physics is" and not "physics are".
What are the physics of that strange occurence?
 
  • #53
I would not say that. I would use "is".
 
  • #54
Vanadium 50 said:
Tools: pliers, scissors, forceps, glasses and binoculars.
Shears. The scissors reminded me of shears.

In addition to physics: politics, mathematics, economics, ethics, athletics - fields of study or practice.

aesthetics, hermeneutics which are not the plural of the singular form aesthetic, hermeneutic, which are the adjectival forms.
 
  • #55
Astronuc said:
In addition to physics: politics, mathematics, economics, ethics, athletics - fields of study or practice.

But are these plurals or do they merely end in s? "Economics is known as the dismal science". Has an "is" and has a singular complement (if you went to public school or Catholic school after 1970) or predicate nominative (if you went to Catholic school before 1970).
 
  • #57
Fervent Freyja said:
... I’m not going to use the word trousers in a conversation. That’s just weird.
So, how ARE you going to identify the garment that with 2 legs? Pants? Why would THAT not be weird?
 
  • #58
phinds said:
So, how ARE you going to identify the garment that with 2 legs? Pants? Why would THAT not be weird?

Probably because I’ve only heard old people say that word! 😂😂
 
  • #59
Fervent Freyja said:
Probably because I’ve only heard old people say that word! 😂😂
You've only heard old people say "pants" ?
 
  • #60
phinds said:
You've only heard old people say "pants" ?

No, the other word for it. 😘