Posted: Apr 26, 2019 11:54 pm
The whole plural/singular thing should logically be an either/or distinction, but, as with many other aspects of human cognition and categorization, it is not quite so straightforward.
There are nouns than can be either plural or singular ....dog/dogs, house/houses, etc.
Then there are are nouns that only show whether they are plural or singular in the accompanying verb....the sheep/fish/deer is/are.
Then there are nouns (so called plurale tantum) that only have a plural form ...scissors, trousers, police, glasses, clothes etc.
Some nouns can be either singular or plural, depending on the context ...the committee/government/family is/are.
Then we have outliers like cow/cows/cattle where there are two versions of the plural form with slightly different meanings.
And don't get me started on the madness which is the mass/count distinction...
Much as the grammarians of a certain stripe (usually self-appointed 'experts') would like things to be nice and tidy in language, it just doesn't work that way.
There are nouns than can be either plural or singular ....dog/dogs, house/houses, etc.
Then there are are nouns that only show whether they are plural or singular in the accompanying verb....the sheep/fish/deer is/are.
Then there are nouns (so called plurale tantum) that only have a plural form ...scissors, trousers, police, glasses, clothes etc.
Some nouns can be either singular or plural, depending on the context ...the committee/government/family is/are.
Then we have outliers like cow/cows/cattle where there are two versions of the plural form with slightly different meanings.
And don't get me started on the madness which is the mass/count distinction...
Much as the grammarians of a certain stripe (usually self-appointed 'experts') would like things to be nice and tidy in language, it just doesn't work that way.