Nouns that exist only in the plural

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vanadium 50
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread 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.
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
35,003
Reaction score
21,703
I wrote the word "trousers" in another thread, and realized that there does not exist a singular as a noun. (There does as an adjective - "trouser pockets") After some thinking, it appears that these nouns that exist only in the plural fall into three categories:
  • Items of clothing: trousers, pants, jeans, leggings, bloomers, and of course clothes.
  • Tools: pliers, scissors, forceps, glasses and binoculars.
  • Wealth: wages, riches, earnings, belongings.
I can think of a very few others that do not fall into these categories. Anyone want to give it a whirl?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Astronuc, marcusl, BillTre and 1 other person
Science news on Phys.org
There are also words that are BOTH the singular and the plural, such as species (when applied to biological things --- "specie" is a different word and means coins), advice, series, etc.
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre
Physics!
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes rsk, haushofer, Ivan Seeking and 4 others
All the examples in post 2 and 3 are still treated as singular nouns:
"A species/series is ..."
"Physics/Advice is ..."

Wikipedia has more examples
odds, people, outskirts, surroundings, ...
Vanadium 50 said:
wages
But wage is a thing?
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre
Many of these have significant features that are doubled.
A monocular (a single tube binocular like thing) is an interesting in that it is like a half a bincoular or a little telescope.
Screen Shot 2020-10-06 at 3.41.27 PM.png

However, a tripod is singular but has three parts? Then there's the monopod is a singular third of a tripod.
Screen Shot 2020-10-06 at 3.43.26 PM.png
 
mfb said:
All the examples in post 2 and 3 are still treated as singular nouns:
"A species/series is ..."
"Physics/Advice is ..."
Not always. It is grammatically correct to say "these species are" and in fact when referring to multiple species, it would be nonsensical to say "these species is". I believe the same to be true of series, else how would you talk about a group of more than one series? "These series is"? I don't think so.
 
mfb said:
But wage is a thing?

Only in the abstract ("a living wage"). In the concrete, it's plural. ("Mary's wages are well above those of her peers")

Interestingly, Romans 6.23 has "the wages of sin is death", so the usage in 1611 was different than today's.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes symbolipoint
Vanadium 50 said:
Interestingly, Romans 6.23 has "the wages of sin is death", so the usage in 1611 was different than today's.
Interesting. Good catch.
 
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.
 
  • #10
Vanadium 50 said:
Species seems to me a word that does not change its form when pluralized: deer, moose, sheep, aircraft.
Exactly. This species is rare, as but none of those other species are. That deer is a pain in the butt in my garden, as are all those other deer.
 
  • #11
phinds said:
That deer is a pain in the butt in my garden, as are all those other deer.

Better deer than moose in the garden.
 
  • #12
Vanadium 50 said:
Better deer than moose in the garden.
Yeah, one moose would be more than enough. Several meece would be WAY too many.
 
  • Like
Likes pbuk
  • #13
phinds said:
Not always. It is grammatically correct to say "these species are" and in fact when referring to multiple species, it would be nonsensical to say "these species is". I believe the same to be true of series, else how would you talk about a group of more than one series? "These series is"? I don't think so.
These words have a plural that's identical to the singular, but the singular exists.
Vanadium 50 said:
Only in the abstract ("a living wage"). In the concrete, it's plural. ("Mary's,wages are well above those of her peers")
Wikipedia uses it in the singular as regular noun.
A wage is monetary compensation (or remuneration, personnel expenses, labor) paid by an employer to an employee in exchange for work done.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
  • #14
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.
From the dictionary on my computer:
phys·ics| ˈfiziks |

plural noun [treated as singular]

the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy. The subject matter of physics, distinguished from that of chemistry and biology, includes mechanics, heat, light and other radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism, and the structure of atoms.

• the physical properties and phenomena of something: the physics of plasmas.

ORIGIN
late 15th century (denoting natural science in general, especially the Aristotelian system): plural of obsolete physic ‘physical (thing’), suggested by Latin physica, Greek phusika ‘natural things’ from phusis ‘nature’.
 
  • Like
Likes rsk and PeroK
  • #15
mfb said:
These words have a plural that's identical to the singular, but the singular exists.
Exactly the point I made in posts #2 and #10
 
  • #16
phinds said:
Yeah, one moose would be more than enough. Several meece would be WAY too many.

Agreed.
 
  • #17
vela said:
plural noun [treated as singular]

I don't know what that means. Certainly one says "physics is" and not "physics are".
 
  • #18
Then on the edge of this: collective nouns are plural in a limited sense in that they represent more than a single "thing", but they can be plural as well. So I'm not sure where they fit.

Traffic is bad. "Traffics are bad" is not used.
An army marched over the hill.
Two armies fought twice on Pork Chop Hill.

I believe that the traditional North American languages that I knew anything about did not have collective nouns. Per Irvy Goossen who wrote several books teaching Navajo to English speakers.

With the internet out there for years after I left, who knows.
 
  • #19
jim mcnamara said:
With the internet out there for years after I left

You left the internet? Wow! :wink:

"Traffic" is a single thing. Like "homework", "evidence" or maybe "jewelry". It's the opposite of "tweezers" which has no singular.
 
  • #20
A pair of tweezers (or forceps, or scissors) seems to imply that there are two things considered as one.
The pair part gets dropped, perhaps as a linguistic word shortening thing.
Kind of like a pair of chopsticks are required for them to be useful. Give me the chopsticks, but they are separable so we can still use the singular: I dropped the chopstick.

There are plenty of nouns for groups of multiple things, but that can be plural when there are more than one group.
My favorite: a murder of crows. But there are also herds, schools, fleets, etc.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and 256bits
  • #21
Vanadium 50 said:
"Traffic" is a single thing. Like "homework", "evidence" or maybe "jewelry".

You can actually have an uncountable form of many nouns. For example, if a cat is hit by a car, you could say there was cat all over the road.

And there are things like hair, which has an uncountable meaning, in addition to the countable form.
 
  • #22
Vanadium 50 said:
Only in the abstract ("a living wage"). In the concrete, it's plural. ("Mary's wages are well above those of her peers")
Not sure I agree. "I am paid a wage" is acceptable English, although I agree "my wages" is the more common.
 
  • Like
Likes phinds
  • #23
apparatus, nexus, plexus and probably a lot more derived from Latin which I can't remember off hand.
 
  • #24
Those are just singulars ending in s.
 
  • #25
Vanadium 50 said:
Wealth: wages, riches, earnings, belongings.
Before addressing your question; wage, earning and belonging are common singular terms. Rich is a common adjective.

Collective nouns such as deer, sheep contain their singular form.

[The rest of the comments just loaded, so I will read them before replying further.]
 
  • #26
Klystron said:
earning and belonging are common singular terms

In what sense? As gerunds?
 
  • #27
I have heard that in some far off barbarous regions, the word math is plural
 
  • Haha
  • Like
  • Love
Likes vela, Mark44, Vanadium 50 and 2 others
  • #28
BWV said:
I have heard that in some far off barbarous regions, the word math is plural
Yeah, they also can't spell many common words such as color and they badly mispronounce several words.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes Vanadium 50 and BillTre
  • #29
BWV said:
I have heard that in some far off barbarous regions, the word math is plural

Not their fault. It's the cooking.
 
  • Haha
Likes phinds
  • #30
Let me toss out a few more:
  • Congratulations
  • Thanks
  • Outskirts (I find that very interesting - it appears to be from skirt, the verb and not skirt, the noun)
  • Heroics
  • Hysterics
It was pointed out that many of the tools and implements (tongs, goggles, bellows) have two parts to them, so ended up plural - "a pair of scissors" is a remnant, even though one does not say "a pair of bellows".

But how about "gallows"?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes BillTre
  • #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.)
 
  • #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... 🤣
 
Back
Top