Police and Vermin

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 3:59 pm

Police. Cattle. Vermin. Clergy.

Are there more (words which are unmarked and always plural)?

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:17 pm

What do you mean by "unmarked"?

Not fully understanding, the question, I could offer "chattle" which is entymologically related to "cattle" anyway.

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:12 pm

I've probably got my terminology wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Sheep and Deer are unmarked plurals, I think, in that nothing indicates their plurality until you say "The sheep are in the road" or "Seven deer have eaten everything " . But these have singulars.

Police etc are apparently always plural, you don't say "The vermin/cattle/police/clergy *has eaten everything". There's no outward indication that this is so, hence I suppose their plurality is unmarked. Unlike "scissors" or "headquarters".

I can't resist asking if entymology is the study of words that bug you. Or is it

buzz words?

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:31 pm

"The"+adjective sometimes works:

The young are, the old are, the unempoyed are.

Certain (ahem, derogatory) synonyms for police also work, eg the filth

Note "filth" is usually uncountable unless used to refer to the police.

This should be taken as a grammatical statement and not my opinion of the police. You never know when you might need them.

"Spagetti" is the Italian plural, but is treated as an uncountable noun. "Data" used to plural only until someone invented the word "datum".

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:31 pm

I can't resist asking if entymology is the study of words that bug you. Or is it buzz words?

etymology - the origin and historical development of a word, as evidenced by study of its basic elements (etymons), earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning; semantic derivation and evolution.

entomology - the study of insects.

Harzer · Post by **Harzer** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 10:19 pm

"People" is unmarked when it refers to a group of individuals, but marked when it refers to groups of nationals (Peoples of the world unite!).

How about 'scum'? The scum WAS ?????

Actually ( a discussion point from some months back) many singular words can take a plural verb in modern colloquial English, depending on their interpretation:

team The team (as a whole) was booed off
The team (as a group of individual players) were put through their
paces

Harzer

JuliaM · Post by **JuliaM** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:03 pm

Actually ( a discussion point from some months back) many singular words can take a plural verb in modern colloquial English, depending on their interpretation:

team The team (as a whole) was booed off
The team (as a group of individual players) were put through their
paces

Harzer[/quote]

Others that fall into this category are the collective nouns, eg. audience, class, committee, couple, crowd, faculty, family, government, group, public, staff, and as you said, team. I'm sure there's a lot more.

Julia

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:46 pm

I looked through all your examples, Julia (and I've never seen such a comprehensive list, btw); all seemed to work as a single entity and group of individuals except "staff". Somehow "the staff are great," sounds right, but "the staff is great," sounds wrong. It might just be that when people hear, "the staff is...," they think that the speaker is talking about one of the following:

a) A stick or cane carried as an aid in walking or climbing.
b) A stout stick used as a weapon; a cudgel.
c) A pole on which a flag is displayed; a flagstaff.
d) A rod or baton carried as a symbol of authority.

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:01 pm

Hmm, I can accept either "The staff is great." or "The staff are great." but the first one sounds better. heh Also, all of that list in American English uses "is". My family lives in the same city as I do. My class is very smart this year. My team has the worst record of all. I can't use the plural (I know it's an American thing...I think.)

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:35 am

What about the Arsenal are playing on Saturday ?
Is there a rule for certain football (soccer) teams?

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:40 am

Maybe our minds are also subconsciously working with what comes after the verb: Arsenal are playing Man Utd on Saturday = "They, these two teams, are playing".

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:59 am

Sorry, being very silly there.

I imagine that the American usage will become the standard, except for instances such as: (The) police are looking for..., where it is much harder to envisage a single institution, as opposed to, say, "the government is".

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:29 pm

Given the original post included the term vermin, couldn't many of the others be grouped under this category (the police, the government, the Arsenal...)?

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:41 pm

Sorry, being very silly there.

Oh no, you weren't. That was a sensible statement.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:09 pm

Andrew Patterson wrote:Oh no, you weren't. That was a sensible statement.

Hmm, it's not that sensible and still a bit silly when you consider that you could equally say "Arsenal is playing Man Utd on Saturday" (which equally means, Man Utd is playing Arsenal).