Nouns that exist only in the plural

[phinds]

No, the other word for it.

What, leggings? Now that IS old.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

What, leggings? Now that IS old.

I agree.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Here's one that doesn't match any pattern or near-pattern mentioned thus far: Suds.

 

[symbolipoint]

Here's one that doesn't match any pattern or near-pattern mentioned thus far: Suds.

Suds is always plural. I have never experienced suds in any numeration other than plural. Something of this which can be singular would be "bubble". You may have two bubbles next to each other but this is usually not yet suds - still only "bubbles".

 

[brainpushups]

I wrote the word "trousers" in another thread, and realized that there does not exist a singular as a noun.

There's a Fela Kuti song called Equalisation of Trouser and Pant which was the only reason I questioned this statement. Indeed, according to Merriam-Webster 'trouser' is a noun though it is 'usually used in the plural'

 

[phinds]

Suds is always plural. I have never experienced suds in any numeration other than plural. Something of this which can be singular would be "bubble". You may have two bubbles next to each other but this is usually not yet suds - still only "bubbles".

So, just how many bubbles does it take before it becomes suds

 

[Vanadium 50]

Suds is always plural.

And lather?

 

[BillTre]

Suds is always plural. I have never experienced suds in any numeration other than plural. Something of this which can be singular would be "bubble". You may have two bubbles next to each other but this is usually not yet suds - still only "bubbles".

I think that's like sand, which is written as a singular (no "s"), it implies a bunch of things. The singular would be a grain of sand. The grain indicating the next layer down in organization, from the group thing (made of many) to the singular of those items The grain of sand or the bubble (from the suds).
I think the "s" on the end of suds, only indicates a awareness of its being composed of a bunch of very similar items.

 

[phinds]

I think that's like sand, which is written as a singular (no "s"), it implies a bunch of things. The singular would be a grain of sand. The grain indicating the next layer down in organization, from the group thing (made of many) to the singular of those items The grain of sand or the bubble (from the suds).
I think the "s" on the end of suds, only indicates a awareness of its being composed of a bunch of very similar items.

Sands is used as a plural in the construct "the sands of time", referring to the upper sand and the lower sand in an hourglass.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Sands is also plural as in "the sands of Africa", or even "the sands of the Sahara". Additionally, it can mean multiple types of sand: one can compare the composition of sands: say dune sand and volcanic sands.

(And the Sands Hotel in Las Vegas)

 

[vela]

So, how ARE you going to identify the garment that with 2 legs? Pants?

I prefer to call them pantaloons.

 

[PeroK]

There are also breeches, jodhpurs and in Scotland trews.

 

[pbuk]

There is a lot of guesswork in this thread, much of it incorrect, which could be resolved simply by referring to a good dictionary. For instance (sorry @BillTre for picking your post out):

I think the "s" on the end of suds, only indicates a awareness of its being composed of a bunch of very similar items.

No, it comes from its derivation from an Old Dutch word sudse, meaning marsh or bog.

When looking at an 's' on the end of an English word you need to bear in mind that words used in English today have their origins in many different languages which form plurals in different ways, for example Latin: many singular Latin nouns end in 's' but their plural form does not.

 

[Vanadium 50]

for example Latin

Like virus, which appears not to even have a plural in Latin?

 

[pbuk]

Like virus, which appears not to even have a plural in Latin?

It may be the case that there is no example of the plural of virus in any surviving Latin literature ("Caecilius has a great collection of slimy poisons"?), but that doesn't mean that the word cannot be pluralized. As a neuter noun vira would be liguistically consistent (note that viri would not - this is the plural of the irregular masculine noun vir meaning man).

Nouns ending in -us in Latin or (ancient) Greek have many different pluralisations e.g. octopus (Greek) -> octopodes, corpus (Latin = body) -> corpora. In English we may swim with octupuses, but if you wanted to refer to the collated works of Homer and of Virgil you could refer to either their corpora or corpuses.

 

[PeroK]

That leads on to "opus" and the plural "opera", which has become singular.

 

[pbuk]

That leads on to "opus" and the plural "opera", which has become singular.

Kind of - although I think opera (both in the senses of works like La Traviata and of buildings like La Scala) came to English directly from Italian where it had already become singular.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Caecilius has a great collection of slimy poisons

Of course not. That would be silly. If anyone, it would be Verres.

You are right in that virus is a rare word, hard to use in the plural, and the surviving literature doesn't use it - so the plural might have existed. However, there is another word that is neuter second declention ending in -us (perhaps the only one), vulgus. This is a much more common word. (common, get it?) It has no surviving plural either, and many more chances to use it ("the common peoples of the Empire"), not just in Roman speeches and texts, but also in early Latin bibles.

note that viri would not - this is the plural of the irregular masculine noun vir meaning man

While I agree vira is more consistent - that would make virus irregular only in the singular, I am not convinced viri wouldn't be possible:

1. Many languages have homophones: e.g. bark (a dog's sound or outer layer of a tree) or bank (the edge of a river or a place to deposit money)
2. These aren't homophones. The i in vir is short but in virus it is long.

Of course, English has nouns that only exist in the singular (as opposed to words that do not change form) too: anger, chess, fun.

but if you wanted to refer to the collated works of Homer and of Virgil you could refer to either their corpora or corpuses.

And Beethoven's opera Fidelio is Opus 72.

 

[pbuk]

But virus is third decelension neuter and AFAIK there is no similar noun which takes -i in the nominative plural (vir is second declension masculine).

 

[Vanadium 50]

But virus is third decelension neuter

I learned it as 2nd declension neuter ending in -us. The interwebs seems to think it's 4th declension, which seems to me just plain silly. Langenscheidt (I just looked it up) punts completely and just says "irregular".

Still: it's virus, viri, viro, virus, viro (inferred), virus. And it's vulgus, vulgi, vulgo, vulgus, vulgo. So whatever you want to call them, virus and vulgus have the same form. (With an -us for the accusative, which is also weird)

 

[symbolipoint]

After checking a Webster's New Dictionary second edition for Virus to look for what is plural and not finding the plural word form, I checked on line and found https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-plural-of-virus-112199 and https://www.grammar-monster.com/plurals/plural_of_virus.htm .

Virus for singular but Viruses for the plural.

I also remember having been taught, that for just one whole unit of the virus, one single virus particle, this is "virion".

 

[Mark44]

neuter second declention ending

But virus is third decelension neuter

These are declensions I've never seen

English has nouns that only exist in the singular (as opposed to words that do not change form) too: anger,

That statement angers me
(yes, I'm using it as a verb...)

 

[pbuk]

Virus for singular but viruses for the plural.

Yes, that is the normal way that singular nouns ending with an 's' in English are made plural; those that are dealt with otherwise are exceptions, and as we have no literary precedent for any pluralisation of virus in Latin there is no reason to make an exception (and so the discussion above on vira vs viri is academic).

I also remember having been taught, that for just one whole unit of the virus, one single virus particle, this is "virion".

Yes, although I think virion has been constructed Frankenstein-like by scientists from different parts: the suffix -ion presumably stemming from the English word ion = 'a charged particle' whose origin is Greek = 'I go [towards an anode or cathode]'.

 

[OCR]

And lather?

. . . is getting old !
Bummer. . . ! .

.

 

[Vanadium 50]

yes, I'm using it as a verb...

In English any noun can be verbed.

I decline to comment on your comment about how I decline.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

Suds is always plural. I have never experienced suds in any numeration other than plural. Something of this which can be singular would be "bubble". You may have two bubbles next to each other but this is usually not yet suds - still only "bubbles".

“I was washing my hair and accidentally caught a sud (single soap bubble) in my eye.”

You can simply modify many nouns that are nearly always plural by tampering with overall sentence structure.

I could also say, “I cut my leggings in half, and used one legging for a shirt sleeve.”

“The ox-cart ran over him and tore up his pants; thankfully, the left side pant carrying his wallet remained intact.”

“My scissors were in need of repair so I separated them for inspection: I found scissor A had a large gash causing them to catch on each other.”

 

[symbolipoint]

“I was washing my hair and accidentally caught a sud (single soap bubble) in my eye.”

You can simply modify many nouns that are nearly always plural by tampering with overall sentence structure.

I could also say, “I cut my leggings in half, and used one legging for a shirt sleeve.”

“The ox-cart ran over him and tore up his pants; thankfully, the left side pant carrying his wallet remained intact.”

“My scissors were in need of repair so I separated them for inspection: I found scissor A had a large gash causing them to catch on each other.”

Truly, if the modification or manner of usage is effective for communication then it is good. The scissors example I am not too comfortable with. I offer no remedy for it. Still, if someone detaches the two scissor parts, what exactly do we call each of the separate parts?

 

[symbolipoint]

“My scissors were in need of repair so I separated them for inspection: I found scissor A had a large gash causing them to catch on each other.”

Here is some further reading on this:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scissors

 

[mfb]

Still, if someone detaches the two scissor parts, what exactly do we call each of the separate parts?

Scissors half?

 

[haushofer]

To post my first non-physics post on PF:

In Hebrew there are multiple nouns which express something singular, while being deflected as a plural: elohim, shamajim, majim, panim, mitsrajim, jerushalajim, etc (god, heaven, water, face, Egypt, Jerusalem). And like other semitic languages (like Arabic), you have separate deflections for plurals which are 2-fold.

End of highly intruiging and nerdy language fact.