Usage of "No other"
fairycat
Should plural followed by "No other"? or singular?
ex)
1. No other people
2. No other person
It's kind of confusing.
Thanks.
dontbother
> Should plural followed by "No other"? or singular?
>
> ex)
> 1. No other people
> 2. No other person
Both are fine.
> It's kind of confusing.
Why?
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com
"Impatience is the mother of misery."
em...@owlcroft.com
> Should plural followed by "No other"? or singular?
>
> ex)
> 1. No other people
> 2. No other person
Either can be correct, depending on the rest of the sentence; just make
sure everything matches the number--singular or plural--you use:
No other person wants such an action taken.
No other people want such an action taken.
Try also to keep in mind the difference between "people" and "persons".
If five people enter an empty room, then later four people leave it,
what is the room left containing?
"People" should be used only when the individuality of the persons
being considered is of minor or no significance; "persons" should
always be used when the number is actually, or at least in theory,
countable.
Lars Eighner
<1160633925.1...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented fairycat
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
> Thanks.
It depends upon what you mean:
No other people suffered so much under Japenese occupation.
("People" = nation, group, village, etc.)
No other person shall occupy a student's assigned carrel.
("Person" = someone other than the student.)
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
"Joy is but the sign that creative emotion is fulfilling its purpose."
--Charles Du Bos, What Is Literature?
Mark Brader
> being considered is of minor or no significance; "persons" should
> always be used when the number is actually, or at least in theory,
> countable.
No, "people" should always be used unless you are writing formal
legal documents.
--
Mark Brader, "It is impossible. Solution follows..."
Toronto, m...@vex.net -- Richard Heathfield
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> fairycat wrote:
>
> > Should plural followed by "No other"? or singular?
> >
> > ex)
> > 1. No other people
> > 2. No other person
>
> Either can be correct, depending on the rest of the sentence; just make
> sure everything matches the number--singular or plural--you use:
>
> No other person wants such an action taken.
> No other people want such an action taken.
I agree.
> Try also to keep in mind the difference between "people" and "persons".
> If five people enter an empty room, then later four people leave it,
> what is the room left containing?
If you see people gathered in the street and ask one what's going on,
what are you talking to? My answer to both questions is "a person".
Or do you see persons gathered in the street?
> "People" should be used only when the individuality of the persons
> being considered is of minor or no significance; "persons" should
> always be used when the number is actually, or at least in theory,
> countable.
I disagree.
--
Jerry Friedman
Eric Walker
> em...@owlcroft.com wrote:
[...]
> > Try also to keep in mind the difference between "people" and "persons".
> > If five people enter an empty room, then later four people leave it,
> > what is the room left containing?
>
> If you see people gathered in the street and ask one what's going on,
> what are you talking to? My answer to both questions is "a person".
Then does it not seem more felicitous, on parallelism if nothing else,
to say that five persons entered the room and four persons left it?
> Or do you see persons gathered in the street?
It depends, as I said, on the degree to which, at least conceptually,
we consider those gathered as being a collection of individuals as
oposed to an amorphous collection. Typically, the theoretical ability
to enumerate is an indication of the collection being of
distinguishable individuals. I saw some hundred or so persons gathered
in the street; I saw a large number of people gathered in the street.
When the number is both exact and fairly small, I would say that
"persons" is inescapable, save if one is seeking deliberately to bemean
their personhood. ("You people annoy me" said to five persons come,
say, to make a request is an example.)
I don't pretend that there is any hard and fast rule here. The basic
guide is the degree to which the personhood of those comprised is
deemed important or unimportant. (I do not mean by that their "value"
as persons--to say "of the people, by the people, for the people" is
certainly not to dismiss the value of any thus included--I mean the
degree to which we conceive the collection as having distinguishable
identities.) "People" are anonymous, persons are not.
UC
Actually, "no other person" is more correct. "No other" is the same as
'none', which is a singular concept. Zero or one in English take sthe
singular. Two or more takes the plural. In ancient Greek, I believe
there is a 'double' verb form, but in English it's singular or plural.
Robert Lieblich
>
> fairycat wrote:
> > Should plural followed by "No other"? or singular?
> >
> > ex)
> > 1. No other people
> > 2. No other person
> >
> > It's kind of confusing.
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> Actually, "no other person" is more correct. "No other" is the same as
> 'none',
No, it isn't.
> which is a singular concept.
No it isn't.
> Zero or one in English take sthe singular.
Also wrong. When "zero" is used as a modifier, it can take a plural
substantive and verb: "Zero students drive to school." Just like "no
other."
> Two or more takes the plural.
Well, for once you're right.
> In ancient Greek, I believe there is a 'double' verb form,
You do your believing in ancient Greek? Or perhaps you forgot the
comma after "believe."
> but in English it's singular or plural.
If "it" is "No other," you've gone all round the barn and come back to
the right answer. Otherwise, you're still mired in error.
You still don't get no respect.
Robert Bannister
I think you have been brainwashed by modern political-socialogical
jargon. The normal plural of "person" is "people". In officalese, the
plural "persons" is used. Most people find the word distasteful and
dehumanising.
--
Rob Bannister
UC
Robert Lieblich wrote:
> UC wrote:
> >
> > fairycat wrote:
> > > Should plural followed by "No other"? or singular?
> > >
> > > ex)
> > > 1. No other people
> > > 2. No other person
> > >
> > > It's kind of confusing.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> >
> > Actually, "no other person" is more correct. "No other" is the same as
> > 'none',
>
> No, it isn't.
Except for the one or ones under consideration. GRAMMATICALLY, it's the
same as 'none'.
>
> > which is a singular concept.
>
> No it isn't.
Sorry, it is.
>
> > Zero or one in English take sthe singular.
>
> Also wrong. When "zero" is used as a modifier, it can take a plural
> substantive and verb: "Zero students drive to school." Just like "no
> other."
Wrong. 'Zero' is expressed by 'none'. I don't mean '0'.
>
> > Two or more takes the plural.
>
> Well, for once you're right.
>
> > In ancient Greek, I believe there is a 'double' verb form,
>
> You do your believing in ancient Greek? Or perhaps you forgot the
> comma after "believe."
Si.
Robert Bannister
Zero takes the singular? I don't like the use of "zero" outside
mathematical areas, but surely, if you had to use it, you would say
"zero people" rather than "zero person"? As for "none", it is has long
been accepted that it can be followed by singular or plural according to
context; the same with "not one of".
--
Rob Bannister
UC
I meant 'zero' in the sense of 'none', not '0'.
>
> --
> Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
"none are so surely caught, when they are catch'd," Love's Labour's
Lost: V, ii
"And unrespective boys: none are for me" King Richard III: IV, ii
I can't be bothered to search other respected authors, but "none"
frequently takes a plural.
--
Rob Bannister
The Grammer Genious
> <...> The normal plural of "person" is "people". In officalese, the
> dehumanising.
I was once among a group of about 30, waiting for an airplane. Remarkably,
they had not a single writing instrument on their persons. I mean, on their
people.
Eric Walker
[...]
> I think you have been brainwashed by modern political-socialogical
> jargon. The normal plural of "person" is "people". In officalese, the
> plural "persons" is used. Most people find the word distasteful and
> dehumanising.
Strunk & White: "The word _people_ is best not used with words of
number." That is from a 1958 edition, but I suspect goes back to
Strunk's original.
Bernstein, _The Careful Writer_: "Use _people_ for large groups; use
_persons_ for an exact or small number." (1965)
Follett, _Modern American Usage_, at "persons": "This is a much-needed
word that is too absent-mindedly replaced by _people_. . . . When we
say _persons_ we are thinking, or ought to be, of _ones_,--individuals
with identities; whereas when we say _people_ we should mean a large
group, an indefinite and anonymous mass." (1966)
If you think that Wilson Follett or Ted Bernstein or Will Strunk were
"PC", you don't know enough about any of them.
How the word that grants personhood could be "demeaning",
"distasteful", or "dehumanising" while the one that denies it is
preferred is beyond me. (Well, no, I guess come to think of it, sad to
say it's not.)
UC
There are several options remaining
There are two options remaining
There is one option remaining
There is not one option remaining
Instead of "no other", say "not one".
Evan Kirshenbaum
> fairycat wrote:
>
>> Should plural followed by "No other"? or singular?
>>
>> ex)
>> 1. No other people
>> 2. No other person
>
> Either can be correct, depending on the rest of the sentence; just
> make sure everything matches the number--singular or plural--you
> use:
>
> No other person wants such an action taken.
> No other people want such an action taken.
>
> Try also to keep in mind the difference between "people" and
> "persons".
That difference, for a large number of (likely most, perhaps nearly
all) modern American English speakers being "'Persons' is used in many
legalistic and maybe a few other restricted contexts and 'people' is
used at all other times".
> If five people enter an empty room, then later four people leave it,
> what is the room left containing?
One person. I'd be willing to bet that you'd get very few other
answers (including any indication that the question was phrased in any
way strangely).
> "People" should be used only when the individuality of the persons
> being considered is of minor or no significance; "persons" should
> always be used when the number is actually, or at least in theory,
> countable.
For most of us, that "should" is a lot like "Sentences should not end
with prepositions". It's completely contrary to the way we grew up
speaking the language, most never consciously encountering "persons"
until long after "people" is established as the plural of "person",
which happens very early. When this came up in 2002 I wrote
Following our last discussion of the topic, I happened to be
discussing addition with my four-year-old son and asked him, after
a series of other such questions, "if you have one person and one
person what do you have?" Without missing a beat he said "two
people".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |English grammar is not taught in
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |primary or secondary schools in the
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |United States. Sometimes some
|mythology is taught under that
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |rubric, but luckily it's usually
(650)857-7572 |ignored, except by the credulous.
| John Lawler
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
UC
You could argue that 'person' has two plurals:
'Persons'
'People'
But note that 'people' has a singular and plural form:
The people of Egypt
The peoples of Africa (Egyptians, Nubians, Arabs, Berbers, etc.)
So, I'm not with ya on this'n.
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> jerry_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > em...@owlcroft.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > Try also to keep in mind the difference between "people" and "persons".
> > > If five people enter an empty room, then later four people leave it,
> > > what is the room left containing?
> >
> > If you see people gathered in the street and ask one what's going on,
> > what are you talking to? My answer to both questions is "a person".
>
> Then does it not seem more felicitous, on parallelism if nothing else,
> to say that five persons entered the room and four persons left it?
Not at all. What others have said applies to me: "persons" isn't a
natural word and has very strong connotations of legal language that
are inappropriate to human beings entering and leaving a room, except
in a police officer's official report or testimony. It might be nice
to have that felicity available, but it's not available in my English.
> > Or do you see persons gathered in the street?
>
> It depends, as I said, on the degree to which, at least conceptually,
> we consider those gathered as being a collection of individuals as
> oposed to an amorphous collection. Typically, the theoretical ability
> to enumerate is an indication of the collection being of
> distinguishable individuals. I saw some hundred or so persons gathered
> in the street; I saw a large number of people gathered in the street.
> When the number is both exact and fairly small, I would say that
> "persons" is inescapable, save if one is seeking deliberately to bemean
> their personhood. ("You people annoy me" said to five persons come,
> say, to make a request is an example.)
>
> I don't pretend that there is any hard and fast rule here. The basic
> guide is the degree to which the personhood of those comprised is
> deemed important or unimportant. (I do not mean by that their "value"
> as persons--to say "of the people, by the people, for the people" is
> certainly not to dismiss the value of any thus included--I mean the
> degree to which we conceive the collection as having distinguishable
> identities.) "People" are anonymous, persons are not.
I must not have made my point, which is that your "what is the room
left containing" argument doesn't work. However anonymous or
indistinguishable the people are, you can still see one as an
individual person. So your example of "I saw a large number of people
gathered in the street" can be followed without incongruity by "and
asked one person what was happening." The same is true for "Five
people were in a room."
--
Jerry Friedman
Evan Kirshenbaum
> You could argue that 'person' has two plurals:
>
> 'Persons'
> 'People'
I believe that that's exactly what I did argue. In most contexts,
it's "people". In some restricted contexts (and, I'll grant, for some
people in most contexts), it's "persons".
> But note that 'people' has a singular and plural form:
>
> The people of Egypt
> The peoples of Africa (Egyptians, Nubians, Arabs, Berbers, etc.)
Of course. That's a different sense of "people", typically learned
considerably later.
> So, I'm not with ya on this'n.
Oh, well.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Yesterday I washed a single sock.
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |When I opened the door, the machine
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |was empty.
| Peter Moylan
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
UC
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> "UC" <uraniumcommi...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > You could argue that 'person' has two plurals:
> >
> > 'Persons'
> > 'People'
>
> I believe that that's exactly what I did argue. In most contexts,
> it's "people". In some restricted contexts (and, I'll grant, for some
> people in most contexts), it's "persons".
>
> > But note that 'people' has a singular and plural form:
> >
> > The people of Egypt
> > The peoples of Africa (Egyptians, Nubians, Arabs, Berbers, etc.)
>
> Of course. That's a different sense of "people", typically learned
> considerably later.
No, not at all. It's the same meaning, in fact.
The Grammer Genious
news:1160767339.4...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> "UC" <uraniumcommi...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> > You could argue that 'person' has two plurals:
>> >
>> > 'Persons'
>> > 'People'
>>
>> I believe that that's exactly what I did argue. In most contexts,
>> it's "people". In some restricted contexts (and, I'll grant, for some
>> people in most contexts), it's "persons".
>>
>> > But note that 'people' has a singular and plural form:
>> >
>> > The people of Egypt
>> > The peoples of Africa (Egyptians, Nubians, Arabs, Berbers, etc.)
>>
>> Of course. That's a different sense of "people", typically learned
>> considerably later.
>
> No, not at all. It's the same meaning, in fact.
Not only is it not the same meaning, but the word "people" in "the people of
Egypt" could have either the one meaning, or the other. So it's ambiguous.
UC
No, the meaning is the same.
Robert Bannister
Trust you to find another meaning of "person". Good one.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>>I think you have been brainwashed by modern political-socialogical
>>jargon. The normal plural of "person" is "people". In officalese, the
>>plural "persons" is used. Most people find the word distasteful and
>>dehumanising.
>
>
> Strunk & White: "The word _people_ is best not used with words of
> number." That is from a 1958 edition, but I suspect goes back to
> Strunk's original.
>
> Bernstein, _The Careful Writer_: "Use _people_ for large groups; use
> _persons_ for an exact or small number." (1965)
>
> Follett, _Modern American Usage_, at "persons": "This is a much-needed
> word that is too absent-mindedly replaced by _people_. . . . When we
> say _persons_ we are thinking, or ought to be, of _ones_,--individuals
> with identities; whereas when we say _people_ we should mean a large
> group, an indefinite and anonymous mass." (1966)
>
> If you think that Wilson Follett or Ted Bernstein or Will Strunk were
> "PC", you don't know enough about any of them.
You are leading me to believe that "persons" has an American origin, and
yet it is one of our own AUE American members who claimed (in another
thread) that "persons" was not even a word. Despite the authorities
above, "persons" is only found in official jargon.
--
Rob Bannister
The Grammer Genious
>> > No, not at all. It's the same meaning, in fact.
>>
>> Not only is it not the same meaning, but the word "people" in "the people
>> of
>> Egypt" could have either the one meaning, or the other. So it's
>> ambiguous.
>
> No, the meaning is the same.
You're getting cranky and disagreeable. Go brush your teeth and go to bed.
Robert Bannister
> But note that 'people' has a singular and plural form:
>
> The people of Egypt
> The peoples of Africa (Egyptians, Nubians, Arabs, Berbers, etc.)
>
> So, I'm not with ya on this'n.
>
But that is a different and somewhat less common meaning: equivalent to
French "les peuples" as opposed to "les gens".
--
Rob Bannister
Eric Walker
[...]
> You are leading me to believe that "persons" has an American origin, and
> yet it is one of our own AUE American members who claimed (in another
> thread) that "persons" was not even a word. Despite the authorities
> above, "persons" is only found in official jargon.
"Persons" has been in common use in English from at least the
fourteenth century on, so it is scarcely like to be an Americanism. At
present, it is certainly found in formal uses (not quite the same as
"official jargon"), but also in much ordinary, sound writing. Most
authorities continue to designate indeterminate numbers of anonymous
humans as "people" and more or less countable numbers of individual
humans as "persons". Our, dear, dear, _dear_ friends the journalists
and advertising hucksters, however, more and more use "people" as a
plural of "person".
What seems to have been happening in recent years is that those whose
knowledge of uses relies on authority or repetition of the familiar
rather than personal understanding are preserving the proper forms
through simple mechanical obedience to established custom, whereas the
increasing foolish use of "people" is making the right use of "persons"
less common in ordinary uses; hence, to the casual eye or ear, the
silly form looks familiar while the right form seems unusual.
It does not take Olympic-class wits to see that "persons" attributes
personhood to those it describes, whilst "people" meat-grinds personal
identity into an inchoate crowd.
It may be that before much longer, the nonsensical will prevail over
the reasonable--very, very far from the first time that will have
happened--but I'd say that at least for a while to come most literate
persons would rather be so called than be lumped up as literate
people.
Putting it another way, the plural of "person" is "persons", while the
collective noun for an indeterminate number of anonymous persons is
"people".
Do you read _People_ magazine? Would you rather be thought a person or
a peop?
Mark Brader
> It does not take Olympic-class wits to see that "persons" attributes
> personhood to those it describes, whilst "people" meat-grinds personal
> identity into an inchoate crowd.
The etymological fallacy strikes again!
--
Mark Brader "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you
Toronto do say can and will be misquoted and used against
m...@vex.net you in a future post." -- Tanja Cooper, misquoted
UC
Nope. The meanings in English are the same. We have the word
'population' and its plural too. "The people of Egypt" refers to a
national or ethnic group: Egyptians. "The peoples of Africa" refers to
national or ethnic groups (because some peoples are not national in
distribution). "The population of Egypt" refers to merely the number of
persons, and perhaps their ethnic make-up.
>
> --
> Rob Bannister
The Grammer Genious
> Nope. The meanings in English are the same. We have the word
> 'population' and its plural too. "The people of Egypt" refers to a
> national or ethnic group: Egyptians. <...>
And here you have inadvertently revealed your problem. Since you are unable
to perceive the distinction between a national group and an ethnic group,
naturally you are unaware that the distinction exists. But then, with
everyone watching, you take the fatal step of asserting that there is none.
I think the Greeks called this "tragic irony."
Eric Walker
> Eric Walker:
>
> > It does not take Olympic-class wits to see that "persons" attributes
> > personhood to those it describes, whilst "people" meat-grinds personal
> > identity into an inchoate crowd.
>
> The etymological fallacy strikes again!
The etymological fallacy is a real enough thing, but this ain't it. Or
do you reckon that the connection between "person" and "personhood" no
longer exists? If so, what does "personhood" signify? Peoplehood?
And why are simple dictionary meanings being so utterly ignored? In my
trusty desk dictionary, "personhood" does not even have an entry
distinct from that for "person"; it is listed under it and
self-evidently signifies the state of being a person.
person:
1, a human being, especially as distinguished from a thing or lower
animal; individual man, woman, or child
4. personality; self; being
Or, if we go over and lug out the OED, sense 5 is "The actual self or
being of a man or woman; individual personality".
I will say that in poking about, I saw a reference to British English
sometimes using the word "disparagingly", apparently in pompous speech;
indeed, the two examples given there, the only ones given, were both
from a single work by Fanny Burney--two-and-a-quarter centuries old and
sounding it.
I will next say that there probably is a developing trend toward wider
use of "people" where the careful would use "persons", and in time that
habit may spread even to their uses. Till then, though, I reckon that
those who think about what they are actually saying will continue to
use "persons" for groupings of human beings in which the idea of the
personhood of the individuals is not negligible.
And I will finally say that it appears to me that what is useful to say
on this topic, on either side, has now been said.
Mark Brader
> > > It does not take Olympic-class wits to see that "persons" attributes
> > > personhood to those it describes, whilst "people" meat-grinds personal
> > > identity into an inchoate crowd.
Mark Brader:
> > The etymological fallacy strikes again!
Eric Walker:
> The etymological fallacy is a real enough thing, but this ain't it. Or
> do you reckon that the connection between "person" and "personhood" no
> longer exists? ...
No, what no longer exists is the *disconnection* between the singular
"person" and the plural "people". And that's all I have to say on this.
--
Mark Brader "People with whole brains, however, dispute
Toronto this claim, and are generally more articulate
m...@vex.net in expressing their views." -- Gary Larson
UC
The Grammer Genious wrote:
> "UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > Nope. The meanings in English are the same. We have the word
> > 'population' and its plural too. "The people of Egypt" refers to a
> > national or ethnic group: Egyptians. <...>
>
> And here you have inadvertently revealed your problem. Since you are unable
> to perceive the distinction between a national group and an ethnic group,
> naturally you are unaware that the distinction exists.
You can divide people into smaller and smaller groups: peoples, tribes,
clans, families, etc. When I said 'people' refers to a national or
ethic group, it does, but not to both at the same time. The rulers of
ancient Egypt probably were among the least mixed of any in history,
because royal blood was carefully managed. But the rest of the
citizenry were probably much more heterogeneous, with various
ethnicities. I don't know the history of ancient Egyptut my point is
that "the people of Egypt" is a legitimate expression that does not
mean merely "the population of Egypt". "The people of Egypt" refers to
both a national and linguistic group. they are distinct from "the
people of Nubia" both ethnically and linguistically.
The Grammer Genious
> <...>
>When I said 'people' refers to a national or
Ok. Finally! Whew! So you now realize the meanings are not "the same."
Now, was that so hard?
Robert Bannister
>
> The etymological fallacy is a real enough thing, but this ain't it. Or
> do you reckon that the connection between "person" and "personhood" no
> longer exists? If so, what does "personhood" signify? Peoplehood?
> And why are simple dictionary meanings being so utterly ignored? In my
> trusty desk dictionary, "personhood" does not even have an entry
> distinct from that for "person"; it is listed under it and
> self-evidently signifies the state of being a person.
>
> person:
>
> 1, a human being, especially as distinguished from a thing or lower
> animal; individual man, woman, or child
>
> 4. personality; self; being
>
But did you check the plural?
I don't have access to the full Oxford, but the online Oxford I looked
at said "pl people or persons", while the Cambridge Dictionary says
"person Show phonetics
noun [C] plural people or FORMAL OR LAW persons"
--
Rob Bannister
UC
No, you were confused by the ambiguity of 'or'.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Eric Walker:
>> > > It does not take Olympic-class wits to see that "persons"
>> > > attributes personhood to those it describes, whilst "people"
>> > > meat-grinds personal identity into an inchoate crowd.
>
> Mark Brader:
>> > The etymological fallacy strikes again!
>
> Eric Walker:
>> The etymological fallacy is a real enough thing, but this ain't it.
>> Or do you reckon that the connection between "person" and
>> "personhood" no longer exists? ...
>
> No, what no longer exists is the *disconnection* between the
> singular "person" and the plural "people". And that's all I have to
> say on this.
Checking Google Books, I find uses of "people" as the plural of
"person", with specific numbers, back far enough that I have to remind
myself that the singular is "person" and not "perfon". E.g.,
This story Mr. _Holmes_ has told to a hundred People about Town.
John Floyer, _Psychrolousia. Or, the History of Cold
Bathing_, 1715
The _Rain-bow_, is reckon'd one of the most remarkable meteors,
though really it be no meteor at all; but the reflection of the
sun-beams from the smallest drops of a cloud or mist which are
placed in a certain angle made by the concurrence of two lines,
the one drawn from the sun, and the other from the eye to these
little drops in the cloud, which reflect the sun-beams: so that
two people looking upon a Rain-bow at the same time, do not see
exactly the same rainbow.
John Locke, "Elements of Natural Philosophy", _A
Collection of Several Pieces of Mr. John Locke, Never
Before Printed, Or Not Extant in His WOrks_, 1720.
I think it a vast pleasure that whenever two people of merit
regard one another, so many scoundrels envy and are angry at
them.
Alexandre Pope, letter to Swift, Nov. 12, 1728
After doing the due Honour to perhaps the only two People in the
World who could have given Credit to Accounts like that which is
the more immediate Business of this Place, ...
John Hill, _A Review of the Works of the Royal Society
of London_, 1751
The French post-chaises have only two wheels; and when one person
is in them, must have two horses; and if two people, they must
have three.
J. Knox, _A New Collection of Voyages, Discoveries, and
Travels_, 1767
At the far end of the _grot_, there are a dozen rows of seats like
benches, that rise one above another. The uppermost will hold but
two people: on each of the others a dozen may sit with ease.
Thomas Amorey, _The Life of John Buncle, Esq_, 1770
Without specific numbers, it goes back farther:
And because they cannot be expected to praise him who do not know
him, we tacitely [sic] pray for the Conversion of all people,
wishing all might hear the blessed sound of the holy Lessons, and
thereby learn to know God, for if they know him they weill love
him, admire him, and celebrate his Praise as well as we.
Thomas Comber, _A Companion to the Temple_, 1676
And tho' many People know not how to judge, or what to believe, as
to these things, yet [f???ly] they are not hid from Almighty God,
who will judge righteously.
Daniel Leeds, _The Innocent Vindicated from the
Falshoods & Slanders of Certain Certificates Sent from
America on Behalf of Samuell Jenings_, 1695
One thing that I found interesting was that by the middle of the
eighteenth century, "people" was also being used as the plural of
"people", as in
According to this Author, the Fable of the _Pygmies_ and _Cranes_
contains the History of two People who inhabited _Megaris_, namely
the _Pageans_ and _Geranians_.
Antoine Banier, _The Mythology and Fables of the
Ancients, Explain'd from History_, translated 1740.
I suspect that this either reflects a growing use of "people" as the
plural of "person" or contributed to it.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There is no such thing as bad data,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |only data from bad homes.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
UC
Evan Kirshenbaum
> None of this shows that 'people' is being used as a plural of
> 'person'.
In each of them, it's clearly being used as a plural and it clearly
refers to individuals. What do you suggest it is being used as a
plural of?
Indeed, in
>> The French post-chaises have only two wheels; and when one
>> person is in them, must have two horses; and if two people,
>> they must have three.
>>
>> J. Knox, _A New Collection of Voyages, Discoveries,
>> and Travels_, 1767
it would seem to take a remarkable interpretation to allow one to
conclude that "two people" is not being used as the plural of "one
person".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |"Revolution" has many definitions.
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |From the looks of this, I'd say
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |"going around in circles" comes
|closest to applying...
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Richard M. Hartman
(650)857-7572
UC
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> "UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > None of this shows that 'people' is being used as a plural of
> > 'person'.
>
> In each of them, it's clearly being used as a plural and it clearly
> refers to individuals. What do you suggest it is being used as a
> plural of?
'People'.
> Indeed, in
>
> >> The French post-chaises have only two wheels; and when one
> >> person is in them, must have two horses; and if two people,
> >> they must have three.
> >>
> >> J. Knox, _A New Collection of Voyages, Discoveries,
> >> and Travels_, 1767
>
> it would seem to take a remarkable interpretation to allow one to
> conclude that "two people" is not being used as the plural of "one
> person".
Fine. The others that you cited, though, are not.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> "UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> > None of this shows that 'people' is being used as a plural of
>> > 'person'.
>>
>> In each of them, it's clearly being used as a plural and it clearly
>> refers to individuals. What do you suggest it is being used as a
>> plural of?
>
> 'People'.
So you're asserting that the writers of the other examples (John Lock
and Alexander Pope among them) would have said "one people" to refer
to a single individual? Do you have a shred of evidence for this
usage?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |When you're ready to break a rule,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |you _know_ that you're ready; you
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |don't need anyone else to tell
|you. (If you're not that certain,
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |then you're _not_ ready.)
(650)857-7572 | Tom Phoenix
UC
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> "UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> >> "UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > None of this shows that 'people' is being used as a plural of
> >> > 'person'.
> >>
> >> In each of them, it's clearly being used as a plural and it clearly
> >> refers to individuals. What do you suggest it is being used as a
> >> plural of?
> >
> > 'People'.
>
> So you're asserting that the writers of the other examples (John Lock
> and Alexander Pope among them) would have said "one people" to refer
> to a single individual? Do you have a shred of evidence for this
> usage?
The quotes you put up used 'people' in its plural collective sense.
Evan Kirshenbaum
Really?
This story Mr. _Holmes_ has told to a hundred People about Town.
Collective? The "about Town" would argue that it wasn't even to a
single group of that size, but to different people at different times.
two people looking upon a Rain-bow at the same time, do not see
exactly the same rainbow.
He wasn't talking about two individuals, but rather, say, the Greeks
and the Albanians?
At the far end of the _grot_, there are a dozen rows of seats like
benches, that rise one above another. The uppermost will hold but
two people: on each of the others a dozen may sit with ease.
A biggish bench, to hold two (much less a dozen) collective peoples.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The purpose of writing is to inflate
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and inhibit clarity. With a little
|practice, writing can be an
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |intimidating and impenetrable fog!
(650)857-7572 | Calvin
UC
That is precisely what I mean by the 'collective' sense. "A people" in
the non-collective sense is an individual people, like "the people of
Egypt".
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> "UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> > Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> >> "UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> >> >> "UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > None of this shows that 'people' is being used as a plural
>> >> >> > of 'person'.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In each of them, it's clearly being used as a plural and it
>> >> >> clearly refers to individuals. What do you suggest it is
>> >> >> being used as a plural of?
>> >> >
>> >> > 'People'.
>> >>
>> >> So you're asserting that the writers of the other examples (John
>> >> Lock and Alexander Pope among them) would have said "one people" to
>> >> refer to a single individual? Do you have a shred of evidence for
>> >> this usage?
>> >
>> > The quotes you put up used 'people' in its plural collective sense.
[snip examples]
>> At the far end of the _grot_, there are a dozen rows of seats
>> like benches, that rise one above another. The uppermost will
>> hold but two people: on each of the others a dozen may sit with
>> ease.
>>
>> A biggish bench, to hold two (much less a dozen) collective peoples.
>
> That is precisely what I mean by the 'collective' sense. "A people"
> in the non-collective sense is an individual people, like "the
> people of Egypt".
I apologize for not realizing that by "collective", you meant
"considered as individuals", while you use "non-collective" to mean
"considered as a group".
So this is a "plural collective sense" for which it "is being used as
the plural of" "people". But I'm not supposed to draw the conclusion
that had the bench been just a little shorter the author would have
described it has holding "but one people"? If it would have been "but
one person", how is this different from saying that "people" is being
used as the plural of "person"? (i.e., when there's one, you use
"person"; when there's more than one, you use "people").
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |When all else fails, give the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |customer what they ask for. This
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |is strong medicine and rarely needs
|to be repeated.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
UC
An individual group, as opposed to multiple groups.
> So this is a "plural collective sense" for which it "is being used as
> the plural of" "people". But I'm not supposed to draw the conclusion
> that had the bench been just a little shorter the author would have
> described it has holding "but one people"? If it would have been "but
> one person", how is this different from saying that "people" is being
> used as the plural of "person"? (i.e., when there's one, you use
> "person"; when there's more than one, you use "people").
I'm losing you.
People (collective sense) is used as a plural plural of 'person'.
People (non-collective sense) is used as the singular to refer to
individual ethic or political groups.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
Let's try again. You said
>> >> >> >> > None of this shows that 'people' is being used as a
>> >> >> >> > plural of 'person'.
When I asked what it was being used as a plural for (in those same
examples), you said
>> >> >> > 'People'.
When the examples were presented again, you said
>> >> > The quotes you put up used 'people' in its plural collective
>> >> > sense.
And now you say
> People (collective sense) is used as a plural plural of 'person'.
Is the solution to the mystery in that "plural plural", whatever that
might be? That "people" is the plural of "people" but the "plural
plural" of "person"?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The Elizabethans had so many words
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |for the female genitals that it is
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |quite hard to speak a sentence of
|modern English without inadvertently
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |mentioning at least three of them.
(650)857-7572 | Terry Pratchett
UC
Singular: Person
Plural: Persons or people (collective sense)
Singular: People (non-collective sense)
Plural: Peoples (non-collective sense)
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Singular: Person
> Plural: Persons or people (collective sense)
So the examples "used 'people' in its plural collective sense", and
the plural collective sense of "people" has "person" as a singular,
but "none of it [the examples] shows that 'people' is being used as a
plural of 'person'", and what it's being used as the plural of is
"people".
Have I got that right?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |You cannot solve problems with the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |same type of thinking that created
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |them.
| Albert Einstein
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
UC
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> "UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > Singular: Person
> > Plural: Persons or people (collective sense)
>
> So the examples "used 'people' in its plural collective sense", and
> the plural collective sense of "people" has "person" as a singular,
> but "none of it [the examples] shows that 'people' is being used as a
> plural of 'person'", and what it's being used as the plural of is
> "people".
>
> Have I got that right?
No. The fact is not cvlear that 'person' was ever in anyone's mind.
Only the collective 'people' was used, so we cannot know. The
collective 'people' has no singular.
UC
'People', singular in construction, non-collective sense. From Webster
3rd NI.
5a : a body of persons that are united by a common culture, tradition,
or sense of kinship though not necessarily by consanguinity or by
racial or political ties and that typically have common language,
institutions, and beliefs *many European nations are populated by
several distinct peoples* *primitive peoples* *each people builds a
culture adapted to its peculiar needs* b : a body of persons
constituting a politically organized or consanguineous group (as a
tribe, nation, or race) *the peoples of Europe* *the Caucasian people
gradually populated Europe and much of northern Africa* *the military
genius of the German people*
Note "each people" in quote takes 'builds' as the verb.
Distinct from sense 1:
1 people plural a : human beings not individually known or
considered as individuals *people say* *tell people about his luck* b
(1) : human beings who form a segment of humanity usually sharing a
common characteristic *stupid people* *met all sorts of people on the
trip* *people who live in glass houses*(2) : human beings
distributively as individuals or constituting a numerable group *we saw
many people on our walk* *shelter for thousands of people* c : human
beings as distinguished from the lower animals *diseases that people
catch from their pets* *it is hard to avoid thinking of some dogs as
people* *we heard cows lowing but saw no people*
Stephen Calder
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> "UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Singular: Person
>>> Plural: Persons or people (collective sense)
>> So the examples "used 'people' in its plural collective sense", and
>> the plural collective sense of "people" has "person" as a singular,
>> but "none of it [the examples] shows that 'people' is being used as a
>> plural of 'person'", and what it's being used as the plural of is
>> "people".
>>
>> Have I got that right?
>
> No. The fact is not cvlear that 'person' was ever in anyone's mind.
> Only the collective 'people' was used, so we cannot know. The
> collective 'people' has no singular.
>
Because you can't have one person?
Or because one person is not a crowd?
--
Stephen
Lennox Head, Australia
Eric Walker
> > "People" should be used only when the individuality of the persons
> > being considered is of minor or no significance; "persons" should
> > always be used when the number is actually, or at least in theory,
> > countable.
>
> For most of us, that "should" is a lot like "Sentences should not end
> with prepositions". It's completely contrary to the way we grew up
> speaking the language, most never consciously encountering "persons"
> until long after "people" is established as the plural of "person",
> which happens very early.
The more I Google up to read, the more interesting this all becomes (as
in "May you live in interesting times.") There seems to be a definite
split here, even among the literate, with some finding the plural
"people" for fairly small theoretically enumerable groups something
from annoying to abhorrent, and others finding "persons"
correspondingly objectionable.
I, at least, can find no clear characterization to the divide. It does
not *seem* Pondian, nor related to level of schooling. It may be
age-related, but if so is hard to pin down. The one thing that seems
clear is that each school regards its view as "what I grew up with",
the only natural one, and is shocked by the other's preference.
That is another way of saying that both forms are to a good degree
"skunked terms"; regrettably, the plural of "person" being so very
often needed, there is no way to avoid using one or both.
I strenuously disagree that that "should" is like any of Miss
Thistlebottom's false rules. It is a matter of preference, and the
number of sound authorities previously cited (and there are more yet)
should show any non-ostrich[1] that the matter is not one-sided or
closed.
No one will have any problem referring to "a person". No one will have
any problem with using "people" in the plural sense for a crowd in
which individuals do not have significance. Presumably no literate
soul will have problems with "people" and "peoples" used as collectives
rather than as simple plurals of "person". The only issue that arises
is the plural used when the collection of humans at issue is one for
which the individuality of its members is, or can reasonably be
presumed to be, ascertainable and worth keeping in mind.
That said, while anyone can use either plural form without fear of
being "wrong" in a grammatical sense, the argument is clear to me from
basic principles: that which augments the ability of the tongue to make
nice distinctions is beneficial. Since the distinction already
discussed at length between "people" for all uses and "persons" for
some particular cases obviously augments our ability to make nice
distinctions, it is worth preserving if at all possible.
Whether it *is* possible in the face of the many who seem content--or
even eager--to use "people" indiscriminately in all cases remains to be
seen. I reckon that normally it would be no contest, at least among
the literate--except that for reasons not certain (but, I suspect from
citations, grounded in some bad novels of manners of earlier
generations, especially in Great Britain) the more reasonable term
"persons" seems, for some, to carry a tinge of condescension.
Well, ya pays yer money an' ya takes yer chances. I, and I imagine not
a few others, will continue--probably for at least some years--to use
"persons" when referring to an assembly of human beings whose
personalities we are not anxious to submerge into anonymity. Perhaps
it will go down as a losing cause in the long run, considering
Gresham's Law, but "losing" and "good" are not synonyms.
[1] An ostrich, for this purpose, is one who believes that feedback
from a usenet group or two constitutes the spectrum of informed opinion
of the subject topic.