Does English have any singularia tantum besides mass nouns? The Next CEO of Stack Overflow“sufferings” is plural though it is uncountable,but how?What is the difference between a “singular noun” and a “plural noun treated as singular”?Nationality as mass nounIs the noun “faculty” countable?British Mass Nouns versus American Count NounsDifference between singular and countable nouns“I often buy fruit” vs “I often buy fruits”?Mass nouns v uncount nounsCan countable nouns become uncountable by usage?If a word comes with 'a' or 'an', does it mean it's a countable noun?Is “surroundings” a plural noun or a mass noun that just happens to take the form of a plural?
Writing differences on a blackboard
Tactics for judging if a printed image will be bright enough?
Why is information "lost" when it got into a black hole?
Rotate a column
Math-accent symbol over parentheses enclosing accented symbol (amsmath)
Why the difference in type-inference over the as-pattern in two similar function definitions?
How do I align (1) and (2)?
Reference request: Grassmannian and Plucker coordinates in type B, C, D
Would this house-rule that treats advantage as a +1 to the roll instead (and disadvantage as -1) and allows them to stack be balanced?
Solving system of ODEs with extra parameter
Which one is the true statement?
What flight has the highest ratio of time difference to flight time?
How to avoid supervisors with prejudiced views?
What is the value of α and β in a triangle?
Break Away Valves for Launch
Is there a difference between "Fahrstuhl" and "Aufzug"
Is French Guiana a (hard) EU border?
Does soap repel water?
Why didn't Khan get resurrected in the Genesis Explosion?
How a 64-bit process virtual address space is divided in Linux?
Is it ever safe to open a suspicious HTML file (e.g. email attachment)?
Plot of histogram similar to output from @risk
Help understanding this unsettling image of Titan, Epimetheus, and Saturn's rings?
Do I need to write [sic] when a number is less than 10 but isn't written out?
Does English have any singularia tantum besides mass nouns?
The Next CEO of Stack Overflow“sufferings” is plural though it is uncountable,but how?What is the difference between a “singular noun” and a “plural noun treated as singular”?Nationality as mass nounIs the noun “faculty” countable?British Mass Nouns versus American Count NounsDifference between singular and countable nouns“I often buy fruit” vs “I often buy fruits”?Mass nouns v uncount nounsCan countable nouns become uncountable by usage?If a word comes with 'a' or 'an', does it mean it's a countable noun?Is “surroundings” a plural noun or a mass noun that just happens to take the form of a plural?
Singularia tantum and pluralia tantum are, respectively, nouns that have only a singular form and nouns that have only a plural form.
In English, we have a handful of pluralia tantum that are mass nouns which take the plural form (e.g. "riches" and "remains"), a whole load of pluralia tantum that refer to things that come in pairs (e.g. "trousers", "sunglasses", "knickers", or "scissors"), and at least one plurale tantum that fits into neither of the above categories ("clothes", meaning multiple items of clothing - it's clear what the hypothetical singular "clothe" would mean, yet it mysteriously isn't a word). Singularia tantum, on the other hand, seem less varied. As far as I can tell, they are all mass nouns - things like "information", "milk", and "racism".
One can imagine there being a singulare tantum that is not a mass noun. For example, we can imagine an alternate universe in which it is still correct English to talk about "a dog", but talking about "dogs" in the plural is incorrect and funny in the same way that it is incorrect and funny to talk about a "scissor". It might seem unintuitive to think that such a noun even could exist - surely, if it is not a mass noun, then people would just pluralise it with an "s" on the end like most other words? But the converse argument could just as well be made about countable pluralia tantum, and I still cannot go to a shop and buy a "clothe". Hence my question: do we have any such countable singularia tantum in the language? Have we in the past?
grammar nouns uncountable-nouns countable-nouns pluralia-tantum
edited 2 hours ago
tchrist♦
109k30295475
asked Aug 25 '17 at 22:08
Mark AmeryMark Amery
374210
add a comment |
Singularia tantum and pluralia tantum are, respectively, nouns that have only a singular form and nouns that have only a plural form.
In English, we have a handful of pluralia tantum that are mass nouns which take the plural form (e.g. "riches" and "remains"), a whole load of pluralia tantum that refer to things that come in pairs (e.g. "trousers", "sunglasses", "knickers", or "scissors"), and at least one plurale tantum that fits into neither of the above categories ("clothes", meaning multiple items of clothing - it's clear what the hypothetical singular "clothe" would mean, yet it mysteriously isn't a word). Singularia tantum, on the other hand, seem less varied. As far as I can tell, they are all mass nouns - things like "information", "milk", and "racism".
One can imagine there being a singulare tantum that is not a mass noun. For example, we can imagine an alternate universe in which it is still correct English to talk about "a dog", but talking about "dogs" in the plural is incorrect and funny in the same way that it is incorrect and funny to talk about a "scissor". It might seem unintuitive to think that such a noun even could exist - surely, if it is not a mass noun, then people would just pluralise it with an "s" on the end like most other words? But the converse argument could just as well be made about countable pluralia tantum, and I still cannot go to a shop and buy a "clothe". Hence my question: do we have any such countable singularia tantum in the language? Have we in the past?
grammar nouns uncountable-nouns countable-nouns pluralia-tantum
edited 2 hours ago
tchrist♦
109k30295475
asked Aug 25 '17 at 22:08
Mark AmeryMark Amery
374210
I think you are right that all of the possible candidates actually do have plural forms. "Person", although commonly used alongside plural "people", does still have the plural form "persons" (and "people" could even be viewed as a kind of suppletive plural form); "Forceps" is much more common than either of its plural forms "forcepses" or "forcipes", but they do exist.
– sumelic
Aug 25 '17 at 22:34
'Clothes' is a non-count noun. We've been here before. Etically countable (the number of items of clothing may be counted), plural in form, taking a plural verb-form, but a non-count noun (you can't have 'two clothes').
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 25 '17 at 22:53
@EdwinAshworth hmm, interesting. Googling reveals that I am indeed using terminology incorrectly - I see that "trousers" are considered uncountable, even though it's clear that there are two of them and that the word does not simply refer to a countless mass. (If you rip a pair of trousers in half, each half is no longer "trousers"; similarly, a single T-shirt is not "clothes".) You propose a neat alternate term, "etically countable", to capture this idea, but I'm reluctant to use it since Google tells me nobody on the internet has ever used it other than you! Is there a more standard term?
– Mark Amery
Aug 25 '17 at 23:02
1
The only meaningful definition of a count usage (see CGEL) is one where a numeral may be preposed. Three coffees. The two furnitures discussed by Knowles. *Seven news. *Two police. Obviously, a count usage demands that a 'plural noun' whether obviously plural in form (three dogs, three men) or not (two sheep) be available. // This answer gives links to analysis and the use of the term 'etic[ally]'. It uses 'discrete' for 'countable in the stocktaking sense'.
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 25 '17 at 23:15
It is not "incorrect and funny to talk about scissor". Search Google books for "a scissor". The same might be said for pant. Etc.
– 9fyj'j55-8ujfr5yhjky-'tt6yhkjj
Aug 26 '17 at 14:12
add a comment |
Singularia tantum and pluralia tantum are, respectively, nouns that have only a singular form and nouns that have only a plural form.
In English, we have a handful of pluralia tantum that are mass nouns which take the plural form (e.g. "riches" and "remains"), a whole load of pluralia tantum that refer to things that come in pairs (e.g. "trousers", "sunglasses", "knickers", or "scissors"), and at least one plurale tantum that fits into neither of the above categories ("clothes", meaning multiple items of clothing - it's clear what the hypothetical singular "clothe" would mean, yet it mysteriously isn't a word). Singularia tantum, on the other hand, seem less varied. As far as I can tell, they are all mass nouns - things like "information", "milk", and "racism".
One can imagine there being a singulare tantum that is not a mass noun. For example, we can imagine an alternate universe in which it is still correct English to talk about "a dog", but talking about "dogs" in the plural is incorrect and funny in the same way that it is incorrect and funny to talk about a "scissor". It might seem unintuitive to think that such a noun even could exist - surely, if it is not a mass noun, then people would just pluralise it with an "s" on the end like most other words? But the converse argument could just as well be made about countable pluralia tantum, and I still cannot go to a shop and buy a "clothe". Hence my question: do we have any such countable singularia tantum in the language? Have we in the past?
grammar nouns uncountable-nouns countable-nouns pluralia-tantum
edited 2 hours ago
tchrist♦
109k30295475
asked Aug 25 '17 at 22:08
Mark AmeryMark Amery
374210
Singularia tantum and pluralia tantum are, respectively, nouns that have only a singular form and nouns that have only a plural form.
In English, we have a handful of pluralia tantum that are mass nouns which take the plural form (e.g. "riches" and "remains"), a whole load of pluralia tantum that refer to things that come in pairs (e.g. "trousers", "sunglasses", "knickers", or "scissors"), and at least one plurale tantum that fits into neither of the above categories ("clothes", meaning multiple items of clothing - it's clear what the hypothetical singular "clothe" would mean, yet it mysteriously isn't a word). Singularia tantum, on the other hand, seem less varied. As far as I can tell, they are all mass nouns - things like "information", "milk", and "racism".
One can imagine there being a singulare tantum that is not a mass noun. For example, we can imagine an alternate universe in which it is still correct English to talk about "a dog", but talking about "dogs" in the plural is incorrect and funny in the same way that it is incorrect and funny to talk about a "scissor". It might seem unintuitive to think that such a noun even could exist - surely, if it is not a mass noun, then people would just pluralise it with an "s" on the end like most other words? But the converse argument could just as well be made about countable pluralia tantum, and I still cannot go to a shop and buy a "clothe". Hence my question: do we have any such countable singularia tantum in the language? Have we in the past?
grammar nouns uncountable-nouns countable-nouns pluralia-tantum
grammar nouns uncountable-nouns countable-nouns pluralia-tantum
edited 2 hours ago
tchrist♦
109k30295475
asked Aug 25 '17 at 22:08
Mark AmeryMark Amery
374210
edited 2 hours ago
tchrist♦
109k30295475
asked Aug 25 '17 at 22:08
Mark AmeryMark Amery
374210
edited 2 hours ago
tchrist♦
109k30295475
edited 2 hours ago
tchrist♦
109k30295475
edited 2 hours ago
tchrist♦
109k30295475
109k30295475
asked Aug 25 '17 at 22:08
Mark AmeryMark Amery
374210
asked Aug 25 '17 at 22:08
Mark AmeryMark Amery
374210
asked Aug 25 '17 at 22:08
Mark AmeryMark Amery
374210
374210
I think you are right that all of the possible candidates actually do have plural forms. "Person", although commonly used alongside plural "people", does still have the plural form "persons" (and "people" could even be viewed as a kind of suppletive plural form); "Forceps" is much more common than either of its plural forms "forcepses" or "forcipes", but they do exist.
– sumelic
Aug 25 '17 at 22:34
'Clothes' is a non-count noun. We've been here before. Etically countable (the number of items of clothing may be counted), plural in form, taking a plural verb-form, but a non-count noun (you can't have 'two clothes').
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 25 '17 at 22:53
@EdwinAshworth hmm, interesting. Googling reveals that I am indeed using terminology incorrectly - I see that "trousers" are considered uncountable, even though it's clear that there are two of them and that the word does not simply refer to a countless mass. (If you rip a pair of trousers in half, each half is no longer "trousers"; similarly, a single T-shirt is not "clothes".) You propose a neat alternate term, "etically countable", to capture this idea, but I'm reluctant to use it since Google tells me nobody on the internet has ever used it other than you! Is there a more standard term?
– Mark Amery
Aug 25 '17 at 23:02
1
The only meaningful definition of a count usage (see CGEL) is one where a numeral may be preposed. Three coffees. The two furnitures discussed by Knowles. *Seven news. *Two police. Obviously, a count usage demands that a 'plural noun' whether obviously plural in form (three dogs, three men) or not (two sheep) be available. // This answer gives links to analysis and the use of the term 'etic[ally]'. It uses 'discrete' for 'countable in the stocktaking sense'.
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 25 '17 at 23:15
It is not "incorrect and funny to talk about scissor". Search Google books for "a scissor". The same might be said for pant. Etc.
– 9fyj'j55-8ujfr5yhjky-'tt6yhkjj
Aug 26 '17 at 14:12
add a comment |
I think you are right that all of the possible candidates actually do have plural forms. "Person", although commonly used alongside plural "people", does still have the plural form "persons" (and "people" could even be viewed as a kind of suppletive plural form); "Forceps" is much more common than either of its plural forms "forcepses" or "forcipes", but they do exist.
– sumelic
Aug 25 '17 at 22:34
'Clothes' is a non-count noun. We've been here before. Etically countable (the number of items of clothing may be counted), plural in form, taking a plural verb-form, but a non-count noun (you can't have 'two clothes').
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 25 '17 at 22:53
@EdwinAshworth hmm, interesting. Googling reveals that I am indeed using terminology incorrectly - I see that "trousers" are considered uncountable, even though it's clear that there are two of them and that the word does not simply refer to a countless mass. (If you rip a pair of trousers in half, each half is no longer "trousers"; similarly, a single T-shirt is not "clothes".) You propose a neat alternate term, "etically countable", to capture this idea, but I'm reluctant to use it since Google tells me nobody on the internet has ever used it other than you! Is there a more standard term?
– Mark Amery
Aug 25 '17 at 23:02
1
The only meaningful definition of a count usage (see CGEL) is one where a numeral may be preposed. Three coffees. The two furnitures discussed by Knowles. *Seven news. *Two police. Obviously, a count usage demands that a 'plural noun' whether obviously plural in form (three dogs, three men) or not (two sheep) be available. // This answer gives links to analysis and the use of the term 'etic[ally]'. It uses 'discrete' for 'countable in the stocktaking sense'.
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 25 '17 at 23:15
It is not "incorrect and funny to talk about scissor". Search Google books for "a scissor". The same might be said for pant. Etc.
– 9fyj'j55-8ujfr5yhjky-'tt6yhkjj
Aug 26 '17 at 14:12
I think you are right that all of the possible candidates actually do have plural forms. "Person", although commonly used alongside plural "people", does still have the plural form "persons" (and "people" could even be viewed as a kind of suppletive plural form); "Forceps" is much more common than either of its plural forms "forcepses" or "forcipes", but they do exist.
– sumelic
Aug 25 '17 at 22:34
I think you are right that all of the possible candidates actually do have plural forms. "Person", although commonly used alongside plural "people", does still have the plural form "persons" (and "people" could even be viewed as a kind of suppletive plural form); "Forceps" is much more common than either of its plural forms "forcepses" or "forcipes", but they do exist.
– sumelic
Aug 25 '17 at 22:34
'Clothes' is a non-count noun. We've been here before. Etically countable (the number of items of clothing may be counted), plural in form, taking a plural verb-form, but a non-count noun (you can't have 'two clothes').
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 25 '17 at 22:53
'Clothes' is a non-count noun. We've been here before. Etically countable (the number of items of clothing may be counted), plural in form, taking a plural verb-form, but a non-count noun (you can't have 'two clothes').
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 25 '17 at 22:53
@EdwinAshworth hmm, interesting. Googling reveals that I am indeed using terminology incorrectly - I see that "trousers" are considered uncountable, even though it's clear that there are two of them and that the word does not simply refer to a countless mass. (If you rip a pair of trousers in half, each half is no longer "trousers"; similarly, a single T-shirt is not "clothes".) You propose a neat alternate term, "etically countable", to capture this idea, but I'm reluctant to use it since Google tells me nobody on the internet has ever used it other than you! Is there a more standard term?
– Mark Amery
Aug 25 '17 at 23:02
@EdwinAshworth hmm, interesting. Googling reveals that I am indeed using terminology incorrectly - I see that "trousers" are considered uncountable, even though it's clear that there are two of them and that the word does not simply refer to a countless mass. (If you rip a pair of trousers in half, each half is no longer "trousers"; similarly, a single T-shirt is not "clothes".) You propose a neat alternate term, "etically countable", to capture this idea, but I'm reluctant to use it since Google tells me nobody on the internet has ever used it other than you! Is there a more standard term?
– Mark Amery
Aug 25 '17 at 23:02
1
1
The only meaningful definition of a count usage (see CGEL) is one where a numeral may be preposed. Three coffees. The two furnitures discussed by Knowles. *Seven news. *Two police. Obviously, a count usage demands that a 'plural noun' whether obviously plural in form (three dogs, three men) or not (two sheep) be available. // This answer gives links to analysis and the use of the term 'etic[ally]'. It uses 'discrete' for 'countable in the stocktaking sense'.
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 25 '17 at 23:15
The only meaningful definition of a count usage (see CGEL) is one where a numeral may be preposed. Three coffees. The two furnitures discussed by Knowles. *Seven news. *Two police. Obviously, a count usage demands that a 'plural noun' whether obviously plural in form (three dogs, three men) or not (two sheep) be available. // This answer gives links to analysis and the use of the term 'etic[ally]'. It uses 'discrete' for 'countable in the stocktaking sense'.
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 25 '17 at 23:15
It is not "incorrect and funny to talk about scissor". Search Google books for "a scissor". The same might be said for pant. Etc.
– 9fyj'j55-8ujfr5yhjky-'tt6yhkjj
Aug 26 '17 at 14:12
It is not "incorrect and funny to talk about scissor". Search Google books for "a scissor". The same might be said for pant. Etc.
– 9fyj'j55-8ujfr5yhjky-'tt6yhkjj
Aug 26 '17 at 14:12
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
What about a shambles? Although this used to be a plural form, today it's singular. See Oxford Dictionary Online. The first definition
informal [treated as singular] A state of total disorder,
is never pluralized in my experience. The second definition
[treated as singular] A butcher's slaughterhouse (archaic except in place names),
I can imagine pluralizing, but it's archaic.
answered Aug 26 '17 at 1:14
Peter Shor Peter Shor
63k5122229
Addendum: Googling, it appears that some people do use a plural form of shambles: "Those houses were shambles." But it's much less common than the singular. I'd say "Those houses were in shambles." So for many people, shambles is indeed a singulare tantum.
– Peter Shor
Aug 27 '17 at 15:26
Ah, but that usage is used with a different meaning, I think. i.e. it refers to a type of building that's in poor repair/poorly built as opposed to saying that they were a mess in the modern sense.
– Araucaria
Sep 17 '17 at 21:44
add a comment |
There is the word series, where singular and plural are the same.
answered Aug 26 '17 at 1:24
GEdgarGEdgar
13.8k22045
2
That isn't like how these cattle are is legal but this cattle is is illegal. You need a singular that cannot be used in the plural, like mass nouns.
– tchrist♦
Aug 26 '17 at 1:44
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f407446%2fdoes-english-have-any-singularia-tantum-besides-mass-nouns%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
What about a shambles? Although this used to be a plural form, today it's singular. See Oxford Dictionary Online. The first definition
informal [treated as singular] A state of total disorder,
is never pluralized in my experience. The second definition
[treated as singular] A butcher's slaughterhouse (archaic except in place names),
I can imagine pluralizing, but it's archaic.
answered Aug 26 '17 at 1:14
Peter Shor Peter Shor
63k5122229
Addendum: Googling, it appears that some people do use a plural form of shambles: "Those houses were shambles." But it's much less common than the singular. I'd say "Those houses were in shambles." So for many people, shambles is indeed a singulare tantum.
– Peter Shor
Aug 27 '17 at 15:26
Ah, but that usage is used with a different meaning, I think. i.e. it refers to a type of building that's in poor repair/poorly built as opposed to saying that they were a mess in the modern sense.
– Araucaria
Sep 17 '17 at 21:44
add a comment |
What about a shambles? Although this used to be a plural form, today it's singular. See Oxford Dictionary Online. The first definition
informal [treated as singular] A state of total disorder,
is never pluralized in my experience. The second definition
[treated as singular] A butcher's slaughterhouse (archaic except in place names),
I can imagine pluralizing, but it's archaic.
answered Aug 26 '17 at 1:14
Peter Shor Peter Shor
63k5122229
Addendum: Googling, it appears that some people do use a plural form of shambles: "Those houses were shambles." But it's much less common than the singular. I'd say "Those houses were in shambles." So for many people, shambles is indeed a singulare tantum.
– Peter Shor
Aug 27 '17 at 15:26
Ah, but that usage is used with a different meaning, I think. i.e. it refers to a type of building that's in poor repair/poorly built as opposed to saying that they were a mess in the modern sense.
– Araucaria
Sep 17 '17 at 21:44
add a comment |
What about a shambles? Although this used to be a plural form, today it's singular. See Oxford Dictionary Online. The first definition
informal [treated as singular] A state of total disorder,
is never pluralized in my experience. The second definition
[treated as singular] A butcher's slaughterhouse (archaic except in place names),
I can imagine pluralizing, but it's archaic.
answered Aug 26 '17 at 1:14
Peter Shor Peter Shor
63k5122229
What about a shambles? Although this used to be a plural form, today it's singular. See Oxford Dictionary Online. The first definition
informal [treated as singular] A state of total disorder,
is never pluralized in my experience. The second definition
[treated as singular] A butcher's slaughterhouse (archaic except in place names),
I can imagine pluralizing, but it's archaic.
answered Aug 26 '17 at 1:14
Peter Shor Peter Shor
63k5122229
answered Aug 26 '17 at 1:14
Peter Shor Peter Shor
63k5122229
answered Aug 26 '17 at 1:14
Peter Shor Peter Shor
63k5122229
answered Aug 26 '17 at 1:14
Peter Shor Peter Shor
63k5122229
63k5122229
Addendum: Googling, it appears that some people do use a plural form of shambles: "Those houses were shambles." But it's much less common than the singular. I'd say "Those houses were in shambles." So for many people, shambles is indeed a singulare tantum.
– Peter Shor
Aug 27 '17 at 15:26
Ah, but that usage is used with a different meaning, I think. i.e. it refers to a type of building that's in poor repair/poorly built as opposed to saying that they were a mess in the modern sense.
– Araucaria
Sep 17 '17 at 21:44
add a comment |
Addendum: Googling, it appears that some people do use a plural form of shambles: "Those houses were shambles." But it's much less common than the singular. I'd say "Those houses were in shambles." So for many people, shambles is indeed a singulare tantum.
– Peter Shor
Aug 27 '17 at 15:26
Ah, but that usage is used with a different meaning, I think. i.e. it refers to a type of building that's in poor repair/poorly built as opposed to saying that they were a mess in the modern sense.
– Araucaria
Sep 17 '17 at 21:44
Addendum: Googling, it appears that some people do use a plural form of shambles: "Those houses were shambles." But it's much less common than the singular. I'd say "Those houses were in shambles." So for many people, shambles is indeed a singulare tantum.
– Peter Shor
Aug 27 '17 at 15:26
Addendum: Googling, it appears that some people do use a plural form of shambles: "Those houses were shambles." But it's much less common than the singular. I'd say "Those houses were in shambles." So for many people, shambles is indeed a singulare tantum.
– Peter Shor
Aug 27 '17 at 15:26
Ah, but that usage is used with a different meaning, I think. i.e. it refers to a type of building that's in poor repair/poorly built as opposed to saying that they were a mess in the modern sense.
– Araucaria
Sep 17 '17 at 21:44
Ah, but that usage is used with a different meaning, I think. i.e. it refers to a type of building that's in poor repair/poorly built as opposed to saying that they were a mess in the modern sense.
– Araucaria
Sep 17 '17 at 21:44
add a comment |
There is the word series, where singular and plural are the same.
answered Aug 26 '17 at 1:24
GEdgarGEdgar
13.8k22045
2
That isn't like how these cattle are is legal but this cattle is is illegal. You need a singular that cannot be used in the plural, like mass nouns.
– tchrist♦
Aug 26 '17 at 1:44
add a comment |
There is the word series, where singular and plural are the same.
answered Aug 26 '17 at 1:24
GEdgarGEdgar
13.8k22045
2
That isn't like how these cattle are is legal but this cattle is is illegal. You need a singular that cannot be used in the plural, like mass nouns.
– tchrist♦
Aug 26 '17 at 1:44
add a comment |
There is the word series, where singular and plural are the same.
answered Aug 26 '17 at 1:24
GEdgarGEdgar
13.8k22045
There is the word series, where singular and plural are the same.
answered Aug 26 '17 at 1:24
GEdgarGEdgar
13.8k22045
answered Aug 26 '17 at 1:24
GEdgarGEdgar
13.8k22045
answered Aug 26 '17 at 1:24
GEdgarGEdgar
13.8k22045
answered Aug 26 '17 at 1:24
GEdgarGEdgar
13.8k22045
13.8k22045
2
That isn't like how these cattle are is legal but this cattle is is illegal. You need a singular that cannot be used in the plural, like mass nouns.
– tchrist♦
Aug 26 '17 at 1:44
add a comment |
2
That isn't like how these cattle are is legal but this cattle is is illegal. You need a singular that cannot be used in the plural, like mass nouns.
– tchrist♦
Aug 26 '17 at 1:44
2
2
That isn't like how these cattle are is legal but this cattle is is illegal. You need a singular that cannot be used in the plural, like mass nouns.
– tchrist♦
Aug 26 '17 at 1:44
That isn't like how these cattle are is legal but this cattle is is illegal. You need a singular that cannot be used in the plural, like mass nouns.
– tchrist♦
Aug 26 '17 at 1:44
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f407446%2fdoes-english-have-any-singularia-tantum-besides-mass-nouns%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I think you are right that all of the possible candidates actually do have plural forms. "Person", although commonly used alongside plural "people", does still have the plural form "persons" (and "people" could even be viewed as a kind of suppletive plural form); "Forceps" is much more common than either of its plural forms "forcepses" or "forcipes", but they do exist.
– sumelic
Aug 25 '17 at 22:34
'Clothes' is a non-count noun. We've been here before. Etically countable (the number of items of clothing may be counted), plural in form, taking a plural verb-form, but a non-count noun (you can't have 'two clothes').
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 25 '17 at 22:53
@EdwinAshworth hmm, interesting. Googling reveals that I am indeed using terminology incorrectly - I see that "trousers" are considered uncountable, even though it's clear that there are two of them and that the word does not simply refer to a countless mass. (If you rip a pair of trousers in half, each half is no longer "trousers"; similarly, a single T-shirt is not "clothes".) You propose a neat alternate term, "etically countable", to capture this idea, but I'm reluctant to use it since Google tells me nobody on the internet has ever used it other than you! Is there a more standard term?
– Mark Amery
Aug 25 '17 at 23:02
1
The only meaningful definition of a count usage (see CGEL) is one where a numeral may be preposed. Three coffees. The two furnitures discussed by Knowles. *Seven news. *Two police. Obviously, a count usage demands that a 'plural noun' whether obviously plural in form (three dogs, three men) or not (two sheep) be available. // This answer gives links to analysis and the use of the term 'etic[ally]'. It uses 'discrete' for 'countable in the stocktaking sense'.
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 25 '17 at 23:15
It is not "incorrect and funny to talk about scissor". Search Google books for "a scissor". The same might be said for pant. Etc.
– 9fyj'j55-8ujfr5yhjky-'tt6yhkjj
Aug 26 '17 at 14:12