Nouns that exist only in the plural

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vanadium 50
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on nouns that exist only in the plural form, categorized into three main groups: items of clothing (e.g., trousers, pants), tools (e.g., scissors, pliers), and wealth (e.g., wages, earnings). Participants also explore nouns that are both singular and plural, such as species and physics, emphasizing their grammatical treatment. The conversation highlights the evolution of language and usage, noting historical differences in noun forms and pluralization rules.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of grammatical categories, specifically plural nouns.
  • Familiarity with linguistic terminology related to nouns and their forms.
  • Knowledge of examples of collective nouns and their usage.
  • Awareness of historical language evolution and its impact on modern usage.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the grammatical rules governing plural nouns in English.
  • Explore the historical evolution of specific nouns, such as "news" and "species."
  • Learn about collective nouns and their grammatical implications.
  • Investigate the linguistic origins of nouns that end in "s" and their pluralization.
USEFUL FOR

Language enthusiasts, linguists, educators, and anyone interested in the intricacies of English grammar and noun usage.

  • #91
mfb said:
Scissors half?
Rethinking that, maybe each piece should be called, "scissor".
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #92
Each of your front teeth is called an "incisor" after all. Surely from the same root (etymologically not dentally)..
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gmax137
  • #93
hutchphd said:
Each of your front teeth is called an "incisor" after all. Surely from the same root (etymologically not dentally)..
This should have been easy to recognize, so now, having spent the effort to have thought through it seems to should have been a much lighter effort.
 
  • #94
Unless I've missed it (or missed the point) no one has mentioned the word people yet.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: symbolipoint
  • #95
rsk said:
noone has mentioned the word people yet.

Peoples of the world.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: rsk and phinds
  • #96
Vanadium 50 said:
Peoples of the world.
Hmm, so it's a word with two plurals then.

I've never heard 'the people is' , only ever 'the people are'
 
  • #97
rsk said:
Hmm, so it's a word with two plurals then.

I've never heard 'the people is' , only ever 'the people are'
No, peoples in the context that Vanadium used it is singular.
 
  • #98
phinds said:
No, peoples in the context that Vanadium used it is singular.
I can't think of a single example where 'people' would be used with the singular form of the verb.

Someone give me an example and convince me please!
 
  • #99
rsk said:
I can't think of a single example where 'people' would be used with the singular form of the verb.

Someone give me an example and convince me please!
I see no problem using in making use of a choice of "people" or "peoples"; only in analyzing each of them. Telling us the details is the work of a true linguist.

If you only want to focus on 1 or more specific individuals or maybe some individuals who are difficult to specify, may choose either "person" or "persons".
 
  • #100
'People' is the plural version of 'Person' 99% of the time.