Nouns that exist only in the plural

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around nouns that exist only in the plural form, exploring categories such as clothing, tools, and wealth. Participants also examine related concepts, including singular nouns that can be both singular and plural, and the grammatical treatment of certain words.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants categorize plural-only nouns into items of clothing (e.g., trousers, jeans), tools (e.g., scissors, pliers), and wealth (e.g., wages, earnings).
  • Others point out that certain words can function as both singular and plural, such as species and series, and discuss their grammatical treatment.
  • A participant notes that while "wage" can be used in the singular, it is often seen in the plural form in concrete contexts.
  • There is a discussion about collective nouns and their pluralization, with examples like "traffic" and "army" being debated.
  • Some participants mention that certain nouns, like "tweezers," imply a pair but are treated as plural without a singular form.
  • Additional examples of plural-only nouns are suggested, including "heroics" and "hysterics," prompting further exploration of their origins and usage.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the classification of nouns and their grammatical treatment, with no consensus reached on several points, particularly regarding the existence of singular forms for certain plural nouns.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight limitations in definitions and usage, noting that certain terms may have abstract versus concrete applications, and that regional variations in language can affect pluralization.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in linguistics, grammar, and the nuances of English language usage may find this discussion relevant.

  • #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.