Re: "people" is not the plural of "person" [was: Re: Is that right?]


Bob Cunningham wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:12:45 -0600, Lars Eighner
> <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>
> > In our last episode,
> > <jedhq1plbnvpug149n0vpua9on2cb6k916@xxxxxxx>, the lovely and
> > talented Bob Cunningham broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>
> > > On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:43:04 +0000 (UTC), Salvatore Volatile
> > ><me@xxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>
> > >> (Note: Sparky has contended that 'people' is not the
> > >> plural of 'person'.)
>
> > > I'll even contend it again:
>
> > > "People" is not the plural of "person".
>
> > > As Michael Quinion says at
> > > http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/people.htm , "people"
> > > is used for the plural of "person" as an alternative to
> > > "persons", but that doesn't make it the plural of "person".
> > > "Vehicles" can be used as an alternative to "cars", but that
> > > doesn't make "vehicles" the plural of "car".
>
> > Is there a point at which that might no longer be so? Or is it
> > still "'Went' is used for the past tense of 'go,' but that
> > doesn't make it the past tense of 'go'"?
>
> Think about what "the" means. Can I properly say "A
> strawberry is the red fruit" when various other fruits may
> also be red?
>
> The position that "people" is *the* plural of "person" is
> indefensible, because even if it's conceded that "people" is
> a plural of "person", it's also true that "persons" is a
> plural of "person".
>
> It's probably true that "went" is *the* past tense of "go",
> and "was" is *the* past tense of "be", unless there is
> another past tense of "go" and another of "be" that I'm not
> aware of.
>
> However, I remain unwilling to concede that "people" is even
> *a* plural of "person", even though it's certainly true that
> "people" is commonly *used* as a plural of "person".
> Previous discussions of this topic have been clouded by some
> people's failure to recognize the difference between "is"
> and "is used as".

I have no horse in this race, but it isn't at all clear to me what
exactly the distinction is that you are making between "is" and "is
used as". I have seen 19th century English grammars which claim that
the nominative singular second person pronoun is "thou" but that the
the plural "you" is used as the singular. If we take Evan at his word
that in his dialect in most registers the sequence is one person-two
people (and, for whatever it is worth, that is the case in my dialect
as well, though perhaps with more registers accepting "persons") then
what value is there to the "is used as" distinction? It looks to me
very much like the analysis that "you" is used as the singular pronoun.
Do you consider the pronouns a "is used as" situation? If not, how
are the two situations different?

Richard R. Hershberger

.

Relevant Pages