Discussion:
Can people be grammatically singular?
(too old to reply)
Dingbat
2017-05-17 14:52:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Can 'people' be grammatically singular?
In the response below, I'm treating 'people' as the singular counterpart of
the plural 'peoples'.

Lois wrote:
The whole idea of blocking yoga for religious or cultural reasons seems really
bizarre to me. I seldom think of yoga as having religious roots, even though
it does. I think it's become almost completely secular as it's practiced in
most places in the US. What do you think?

I say: The only people with a good reason to avoid European or American yoga
practice is the Hindus. That's because it includes religious elements when
practiced by Hindus, which elements would vanish if they practiced secular
yoga instead of Hindu yoga.
Harrison Hill
2017-05-17 15:18:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Can 'people' be grammatically singular?
In the response below, I'm treating 'people' as the singular counterpart of
the plural 'peoples'.
The whole idea of blocking yoga for religious or cultural reasons seems really
bizarre to me. I seldom think of yoga as having religious roots, even though
it does. I think it's become almost completely secular as it's practiced in
most places in the US. What do you think?
I say: The only people with a good reason to avoid European or American yoga
practice is the Hindus. That's because it includes religious elements when
practiced by Hindus, which elements would vanish if they practiced secular
yoga instead of Hindu yoga.
The "is" is so far removed from "people" that I didn't notice
it. Now that you point it out, however, it is wrong. You can't
have "the only people is Hindus".

"The only people is the Hindu people", doesn't work either.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-05-17 16:39:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Can 'people' be grammatically singular?
In the response below, I'm treating 'people' as the singular counterpart of
the plural 'peoples'.
The whole idea of blocking yoga for religious or cultural reasons seems really
bizarre to me. I seldom think of yoga as having religious roots, even though
it does. I think it's become almost completely secular as it's practiced in
most places in the US. What do you think?
I say: The only people with a good reason to avoid European or American yoga
practice is the Hindus. That's because it includes religious elements when
practiced by Hindus, which elements would vanish if they practiced secular
yoga instead of Hindu yoga.
I find your example reads very weirdly, so I think the answer to your
question is no. As the predicate is plural I doubt whether anyone would
find "are" odd.
--
athel
q***@yahoo.com
2017-05-17 20:02:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 17 May 2017 07:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Can 'people' be grammatically singular?
In the response below, I'm treating 'people' as the singular counterpart of
the plural 'peoples'.
The whole idea of blocking yoga for religious or cultural reasons seems really
bizarre to me. I seldom think of yoga as having religious roots, even though
it does. I think it's become almost completely secular as it's practiced in
most places in the US. What do you think?
I say: The only people with a good reason to avoid European or American yoga
practice is the Hindus. That's because it includes religious elements when
practiced by Hindus, which elements would vanish if they practiced secular
yoga instead of Hindu yoga.
I think it's ok as it is. The Hindus are a people who might want to
avoid...
--
John
Harrison Hill
2017-05-17 20:10:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Wed, 17 May 2017 07:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Can 'people' be grammatically singular?
In the response below, I'm treating 'people' as the singular counterpart of
the plural 'peoples'.
The whole idea of blocking yoga for religious or cultural reasons seems really
bizarre to me. I seldom think of yoga as having religious roots, even though
it does. I think it's become almost completely secular as it's practiced in
most places in the US. What do you think?
I say: The only people with a good reason to avoid European or American yoga
practice is the Hindus. That's because it includes religious elements when
practiced by Hindus, which elements would vanish if they practiced secular
yoga instead of Hindu yoga.
I think it's ok as it is. The Hindus are a people who might want to
avoid...
If "The Hindus" were "a people" that wouldn't work
either. They aren't "a people" so it doubly doesn't
work.
q***@yahoo.com
2017-05-17 20:16:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 17 May 2017 13:10:25 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Wed, 17 May 2017 07:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Can 'people' be grammatically singular?
In the response below, I'm treating 'people' as the singular counterpart of
the plural 'peoples'.
The whole idea of blocking yoga for religious or cultural reasons seems really
bizarre to me. I seldom think of yoga as having religious roots, even though
it does. I think it's become almost completely secular as it's practiced in
most places in the US. What do you think?
I say: The only people with a good reason to avoid European or American yoga
practice is the Hindus. That's because it includes religious elements when
practiced by Hindus, which elements would vanish if they practiced secular
yoga instead of Hindu yoga.
I think it's ok as it is. The Hindus are a people who might want to
avoid...
If "The Hindus" were "a people" that wouldn't work
either. They aren't "a people" so it doubly doesn't
work.
Good point.

So, can there be a singular form of 'peoples', in another example? Can
one not say 'a people' at all?
--
John
Quinn C
2017-05-17 20:32:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Wed, 17 May 2017 13:10:25 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Wed, 17 May 2017 07:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
I say: The only people with a good reason to avoid European or American yoga
practice is the Hindus. That's because it includes religious elements when
practiced by Hindus, which elements would vanish if they practiced secular
yoga instead of Hindu yoga.
I think it's ok as it is. The Hindus are a people who might want to
avoid...
If "The Hindus" were "a people" that wouldn't work
either. They aren't "a people" so it doubly doesn't
work.
Good point.
So, can there be a singular form of 'peoples', in another example? Can
one not say 'a people' at all?
| ... they had undertaken to preach the word of God to a wild and
| a hardened and a ferocious people; a people who delighted in
| murdering the Nephites, and robbing and plundering them; ...

Book of Alma

| A people who mean to be their own governors, must arm
| themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government
| without popular information for the means of acquiring it, is
| but a prolouge to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both.

James Madison

| For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a
| well-organized and armed militia is their best security.

Thomas Jefferson
--
The Eskimoes had fifty-two names for snow because it was
important to them, there ought to be as many for love.
-- Margaret Atwood, Surfacing (novel), p.106
Harrison Hill
2017-05-17 20:45:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Wed, 17 May 2017 13:10:25 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Wed, 17 May 2017 07:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
I say: The only people with a good reason to avoid European or American yoga
practice is the Hindus. That's because it includes religious elements when
practiced by Hindus, which elements would vanish if they practiced secular
yoga instead of Hindu yoga.
I think it's ok as it is. The Hindus are a people who might want to
avoid...
If "The Hindus" were "a people" that wouldn't work
either. They aren't "a people" so it doubly doesn't
work.
Good point.
So, can there be a singular form of 'peoples', in another example? Can
one not say 'a people' at all?
| ... they had undertaken to preach the word of God to a wild and
| a hardened and a ferocious people; a people who delighted in
| murdering the Nephites, and robbing and plundering them; ...
Book of Alma
| A people who mean to be their own governors, must arm
| themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government
| without popular information for the means of acquiring it, is
| but a prolouge to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both.
James Madison
| For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a
| well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
all of those are fine (obviously), and make no attempt
to be singular. "For a people who *are* free" etc :)
q***@yahoo.com
2017-05-18 07:35:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 17 May 2017 13:45:58 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Quinn C
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Wed, 17 May 2017 13:10:25 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Wed, 17 May 2017 07:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
I say: The only people with a good reason to avoid European or American yoga
practice is the Hindus. That's because it includes religious elements when
practiced by Hindus, which elements would vanish if they practiced secular
yoga instead of Hindu yoga.
I think it's ok as it is. The Hindus are a people who might want to
avoid...
If "The Hindus" were "a people" that wouldn't work
either. They aren't "a people" so it doubly doesn't
work.
Good point.
So, can there be a singular form of 'peoples', in another example? Can
one not say 'a people' at all?
| ... they had undertaken to preach the word of God to a wild and
| a hardened and a ferocious people; a people who delighted in
| murdering the Nephites, and robbing and plundering them; ...
Book of Alma
| A people who mean to be their own governors, must arm
| themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government
| without popular information for the means of acquiring it, is
| but a prolouge to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both.
James Madison
| For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a
| well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
all of those are fine (obviously), and make no attempt
to be singular. "For a people who *are* free" etc :)
Then, starting from 'peoples', which is plural in the sense of meaning
more than one 'people', we can choose a member of that group and call
it 'a people', which would seem to make it singular.
But examples using 'a people' with a verb conjugated as singular sound
wrong.

On the other hand, changing pronoun, what about 'a people that wants
to remain free'?
--
John
bill van
2017-05-18 08:21:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Wed, 17 May 2017 13:45:58 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Quinn C
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Wed, 17 May 2017 13:10:25 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Wed, 17 May 2017 07:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
I say: The only people with a good reason to avoid European or
American yoga
practice is the Hindus. That's because it includes religious
elements when
practiced by Hindus, which elements would vanish if they practiced
secular
yoga instead of Hindu yoga.
I think it's ok as it is. The Hindus are a people who might want to
avoid...
If "The Hindus" were "a people" that wouldn't work
either. They aren't "a people" so it doubly doesn't
work.
Good point.
So, can there be a singular form of 'peoples', in another example? Can
one not say 'a people' at all?
| ... they had undertaken to preach the word of God to a wild and
| a hardened and a ferocious people; a people who delighted in
| murdering the Nephites, and robbing and plundering them; ...
Book of Alma
| A people who mean to be their own governors, must arm
| themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government
| without popular information for the means of acquiring it, is
| but a prolouge to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both.
James Madison
| For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a
| well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
all of those are fine (obviously), and make no attempt
to be singular. "For a people who *are* free" etc :)
Then, starting from 'peoples', which is plural in the sense of meaning
more than one 'people', we can choose a member of that group and call
it 'a people', which would seem to make it singular.
But examples using 'a people' with a verb conjugated as singular sound
wrong.
On the other hand, changing pronoun, what about 'a people that wants
to remain free'?
A people
United
Will never be defeated.
--
bill
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-05-18 08:43:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Wed, 17 May 2017 13:45:58 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Quinn C
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Wed, 17 May 2017 13:10:25 -0700 (PDT), Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Wed, 17 May 2017 07:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
I say: The only people with a good reason to avoid European or American yoga
practice is the Hindus. That's because it includes religious elements when
practiced by Hindus, which elements would vanish if they practiced secular
yoga instead of Hindu yoga.
I think it's ok as it is. The Hindus are a people who might want to
avoid...
If "The Hindus" were "a people" that wouldn't work
either. They aren't "a people" so it doubly doesn't
work.
Good point.
So, can there be a singular form of 'peoples', in another example? Can
one not say 'a people' at all?
| ... they had undertaken to preach the word of God to a wild and
| a hardened and a ferocious people; a people who delighted in
| murdering the Nephites, and robbing and plundering them; ...
Book of Alma
| A people who mean to be their own governors, must arm
| themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government
| without popular information for the means of acquiring it, is
| but a prolouge to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both.
James Madison
| For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a
| well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
all of those are fine (obviously), and make no attempt
to be singular. "For a people who *are* free" etc :)
Then, starting from 'peoples', which is plural in the sense of meaning
more than one 'people', we can choose a member of that group and call
it 'a people', which would seem to make it singular.
But examples using 'a people' with a verb conjugated as singular sound
wrong.
On the other hand, changing pronoun, what about 'a people that wants
to remain free'?
A people
United
Will never be defeated.
I think that originated as an inspirational song from La nueva canción
chilena, "El pueblo unido jamás será vencido" (Quilapayún, 1973), in
which "el pueblo" is singular. I suspect someone translated it without
paying much attention to niceties of English usage.
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-05-18 09:31:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ... ]
A people
United
Will never be defeated.
I think that originated as an inspirational song from La nueva canción
chilena, "El pueblo unido jamás será vencido" (Quilapayún, 1973), in
which "el pueblo" is singular. I suspect someone translated it without
paying much attention to niceties of English usage.
I should add that it's "El pueblo", not "Un pueblo". In other words,
it's "the people" in the sense used by revolutionaries, not "a people"
as the singular of "peoples".
--
athel
bill van
2017-05-18 16:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ... ]
A people
United
Will never be defeated.
I think that originated as an inspirational song from La nueva canción
chilena, "El pueblo unido jamás será vencido" (Quilapayún, 1973), in
which "el pueblo" is singular. I suspect someone translated it without
paying much attention to niceties of English usage.
I should add that it's "El pueblo", not "Un pueblo". In other words,
it's "the people" in the sense used by revolutionaries, not "a people"
as the singular of "peoples".
No quibbles about "the people". My familiarity with it comes from
newscasts showing marching protesters in Latin American countries,
usually in opposition to one military dictatorship or another, chanting
those words.
--
bill
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-05-18 08:48:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[ ... ]
Post by Quinn C
| For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a
| well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
English usage aside, I think that if Jefferson were still around he
might regret that sentence on seeing what it has led to.

Maybe Mark will insist that this has not been misused and that "armed
militia" is just a metaphor for "collection of nutters with guns".
--
athel
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-05-18 13:06:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 18 May 2017 10:48:14 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ... ]
Post by Quinn C
| For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a
| well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
English usage aside, I think that if Jefferson were still around he
might regret that sentence on seeing what it has led to.
Maybe Mark will insist that this has not been misused and that "armed
militia" is just a metaphor for "collection of nutters with guns".
But they are not "well-organised", fortunately.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2017-05-18 11:47:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On the other hand, changing pronoun, what about 'a people that wants
to remain free'?
A people
United
Will never be defeated.
On albums of the Rzewski piece it's rendered "The people ..."
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-05-18 12:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On the other hand, changing pronoun, what about 'a people that wants
to remain free'?
A people
United
Will never be defeated.
On albums of the Rzewski piece it's rendered "The people ..."
As it should be.
--
athel
CDB
2017-05-18 13:12:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On the other hand, changing pronoun, what about 'a people that
wants to remain free'?
A people United Will never be defeated.
On albums of the Rzewski piece it's rendered "The people ..."
I think the original was in Spanish, where it rhymes.

"El pueblo unido
Jamás será vencido."
RH Draney
2017-05-18 13:20:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by q***@yahoo.com
Then, starting from 'peoples', which is plural in the sense of meaning
more than one 'people', we can choose a member of that group and call
it 'a people', which would seem to make it singular.
But examples using 'a people' with a verb conjugated as singular sound
wrong.
On the other hand, changing pronoun, what about 'a people that wants
to remain free'?
A people
United
Will never be defeated.
Is that a song?...because there's also this:

One Singapore, one people strong and free.
One heart, one voice, we’ll make our history.
We are a rainbow of a thousand colours, lighting up the sky,
We share the Singapore heartbeat,
Together you and I,

We are one Singapore,
One nation strong and free.
A thousand different voices, sing in harmony.
We will stand together,
Together hand in hand,
As one united people,
For Singapore,
My homeland.

....r
q***@yahoo.com
2017-05-17 20:12:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Wed, 17 May 2017 07:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Can 'people' be grammatically singular?
In the response below, I'm treating 'people' as the singular counterpart of
the plural 'peoples'.
The whole idea of blocking yoga for religious or cultural reasons seems really
bizarre to me. I seldom think of yoga as having religious roots, even though
it does. I think it's become almost completely secular as it's practiced in
most places in the US. What do you think?
I say: The only people with a good reason to avoid European or American yoga
practice is the Hindus. That's because it includes religious elements when
practiced by Hindus, which elements would vanish if they practiced secular
yoga instead of Hindu yoga.
I think it's ok as it is. The Hindus are a people who might want to
avoid...
Actually, my mind changed. It souns odd if you say
The Hindus are a people which avoids...
--
John
Peter Moylan
2017-05-17 23:41:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Wed, 17 May 2017 07:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Can 'people' be grammatically singular?
In the response below, I'm treating 'people' as the singular counterpart of
the plural 'peoples'.
The whole idea of blocking yoga for religious or cultural reasons seems really
bizarre to me. I seldom think of yoga as having religious roots, even though
it does. I think it's become almost completely secular as it's practiced in
most places in the US. What do you think?
I say: The only people with a good reason to avoid European or American yoga
practice is the Hindus. That's because it includes religious elements when
practiced by Hindus, which elements would vanish if they practiced secular
yoga instead of Hindu yoga.
I think it's ok as it is. The Hindus are a people who might want to
avoid...
If the original were OK, your paraphrase would have to read "The Hindus
is a people ...".
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Dingbat
2017-05-17 23:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Wed, 17 May 2017 07:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Can 'people' be grammatically singular?
In the response below, I'm treating 'people' as the singular counterpart of
the plural 'peoples'.
The whole idea of blocking yoga for religious or cultural reasons seems really
bizarre to me. I seldom think of yoga as having religious roots, even though
it does. I think it's become almost completely secular as it's practiced in
most places in the US. What do you think?
I say: The only people with a good reason to avoid European or American yoga
practice is the Hindus. That's because it includes religious elements when
practiced by Hindus, which elements would vanish if they practiced secular
yoga instead of Hindu yoga.
I think it's ok as it is. The Hindus are a people who might want to
avoid...
If the original were OK, your paraphrase would have to read "The Hindus
is a people ...".
That looks wrong. But why should it? 'That herd is' vs. 'those herds are.' So, why is the contrast 'that people is' vs. 'those peoples are' not possible? Is it 'The Beatles was a band' or 'The Beatles were a band' or either?
Janet
2017-05-18 13:37:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Subject: Re: Can people be grammatically singular?
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Wed, 17 May 2017 07:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Can 'people' be grammatically singular?
In the response below, I'm treating 'people' as the singular counterpart of
the plural 'peoples'.
The whole idea of blocking yoga for religious or cultural reasons seems really
bizarre to me. I seldom think of yoga as having religious roots, even though
it does. I think it's become almost completely secular as it's practiced in
most places in the US. What do you think?
I say: The only people with a good reason to avoid European or American yoga
practice is the Hindus. That's because it includes religious elements when
practiced by Hindus, which elements would vanish if they practiced secular
yoga instead of Hindu yoga.
I think it's ok as it is. The Hindus are a people who might want to
avoid...
If the original were OK, your paraphrase would have to read "The Hindus
is a people ...".
That looks wrong. But why should it? 'That herd is' vs. 'those herds are.'
"The Hindus" = a plural collective noun, like "The Beatles"

The Hindus are praying, the Beatles are playing.

The herd, is a single collective noun. The herd is migrating.

Janet
pensive hamster
2017-05-18 14:55:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Subject: Re: Can people be grammatically singular?
From: Dingbat
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by q***@yahoo.com
Post by Dingbat
Can 'people' be grammatically singular?
In the response below, I'm treating 'people' as the singular counterpart of
the plural 'peoples'.
The whole idea of blocking yoga for religious or cultural reasons seems really
bizarre to me. I seldom think of yoga as having religious roots, even though
it does. I think it's become almost completely secular as it's practiced in
most places in the US. What do you think?
I say: The only people with a good reason to avoid European or American yoga
practice is the Hindus. That's because it includes religious elements when
practiced by Hindus, which elements would vanish if they practiced secular
yoga instead of Hindu yoga.
I think it's ok as it is. The Hindus are a people who might want to
avoid...
If the original were OK, your paraphrase would have to read "The Hindus
is a people ...".
That looks wrong. But why should it? 'That herd is' vs. 'those herds are.'
"The Hindus" = a plural collective noun, like "The Beatles"
The Hindus are praying, the Beatles are playing.
The herd, is a single collective noun. The herd is migrating.
"Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically..."

http://www.thefawltytowersguide.co.uk/fawltytowersquotes.htm
Janet
2017-05-18 15:03:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Janet
Subject: Re: Can people be grammatically singular?
From: Dingbat
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by q***@yahoo.com
Post by Dingbat
Can 'people' be grammatically singular?
In the response below, I'm treating 'people' as the singular counterpart of
the plural 'peoples'.
The whole idea of blocking yoga for religious or cultural reasons seems really
bizarre to me. I seldom think of yoga as having religious roots, even though
it does. I think it's become almost completely secular as it's practiced in
most places in the US. What do you think?
I say: The only people with a good reason to avoid European or American yoga
practice is the Hindus. That's because it includes religious elements when
practiced by Hindus, which elements would vanish if they practiced secular
yoga instead of Hindu yoga.
I think it's ok as it is. The Hindus are a people who might want to
avoid...
If the original were OK, your paraphrase would have to read "The Hindus
is a people ...".
That looks wrong. But why should it? 'That herd is' vs. 'those herds are.'
"The Hindus" = a plural collective noun, like "The Beatles"
The Hindus are praying, the Beatles are playing.
The herd, is a single collective noun. The herd is migrating.
"Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically..."
More than one herd, then.
Post by pensive hamster
http://www.thefawltytowersguide.co.uk/fawltytowersquotes.htm
janet
pensive hamster
2017-05-20 17:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
pensive_hamster says...
[...]
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Janet
The herd, is a single collective noun. The herd is migrating.
"Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically..."
More than one herd, then.
How can you tell? It could be the same herd
circling round.
Janet
2017-05-20 18:42:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
pensive_hamster says...
[...]
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Janet
The herd, is a single collective noun. The herd is migrating.
"Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically..."
More than one herd, then.
How can you tell? It could be the same herd
circling round.
I can tell because herds ends in s.

If it was one herd it would end in d

Janet
s***@gmail.com
2017-05-22 20:21:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Post by pensive hamster
pensive_hamster says...
[...]
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Janet
The herd, is a single collective noun. The herd is migrating.
"Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically..."
More than one herd, then.
How can you tell? It could be the same herd
circling round.
I can tell because herds ends in s.
If it was one herd it would end in d
A dour post.

/dps

Dingbat
2017-05-17 23:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Wed, 17 May 2017 07:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Can 'people' be grammatically singular?
In the response below, I'm treating 'people' as the singular counterpart of
the plural 'peoples'.
The whole idea of blocking yoga for religious or cultural reasons seems really
bizarre to me. I seldom think of yoga as having religious roots, even though
it does. I think it's become almost completely secular as it's practiced in
most places in the US. What do you think?
I say: The only people with a good reason to avoid European or American yoga
practice is the Hindus. That's because it includes religious elements when
practiced by Hindus, which elements would vanish if they practiced secular
yoga instead of Hindu yoga.
I think it's ok as it is. The Hindus are a people who might want to
avoid...
If the original were OK, your paraphrase would have to read "The Hindus
is a people ...".
That looks wrong. But why should it? 'That herd is' vs. 'those herds are.'
So, why is the contrast 'that people is' vs. 'those peoples are' not
possible? Is it 'The Beatles was a band' or 'The Beatles were a band' or
either?
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-05-18 07:47:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Wed, 17 May 2017 07:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Can 'people' be grammatically singular?
In the response below, I'm treating 'people' as the singular counterpart of
the plural 'peoples'.
The whole idea of blocking yoga for religious or cultural reasons seems really
bizarre to me. I seldom think of yoga as having religious roots, even though
it does. I think it's become almost completely secular as it's practiced in
most places in the US. What do you think?
I say: The only people with a good reason to avoid European or American yoga
practice is the Hindus. That's because it includes religious elements when
practiced by Hindus, which elements would vanish if they practiced secular
yoga instead of Hindu yoga.
I think it's ok as it is. The Hindus are a people who might want to
avoid...
Written like it's OK, but that's not how he wrote it.
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-05-18 13:00:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by q***@yahoo.com
On Wed, 17 May 2017 07:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Can 'people' be grammatically singular?
In the response below, I'm treating 'people' as the singular counterpart of
the plural 'peoples'.
The whole idea of blocking yoga for religious or cultural reasons seems really
bizarre to me. I seldom think of yoga as having religious roots, even though
it does. I think it's become almost completely secular as it's practiced in
most places in the US. What do you think?
I say: The only people with a good reason to avoid European or American yoga
practice is the Hindus. That's because it includes religious elements when
practiced by Hindus, which elements would vanish if they practiced secular
yoga instead of Hindu yoga.
I think it's ok as it is. The Hindus are a people who might want to
avoid...
Written like it's OK, but that's not how he wrote it.
Written like that it's OK, ...
--
athel
Loading...