32

I have been confused for so long about the plural and singular forms of "people". I want to put an end to this confusion.

What is the difference between these following expressions, and is it correct to use these expressions in both their singular and plural forms?

    • "The German people are not warlike"

    • "The German people is not warlike"

(As in "The German people is no warlike nation. It is a soldierly one, which means it does not want a war but does not fear it....")

    • "People are funny"

    • "People is funny"

Here I suppose that "people is" referring to a population/community: "the German people is not warlike" = "the German population is not warlike" and "People is funny" = "population is funny".

Is this correct? If it is correct, then what does "people are" mean?

herisson
  • 81,803
stephenranger
  • 445
  • 3
    People are* always plural,* but *a population is* a singular noun. – FumbleFingers Jul 28 '15 at 15:34
  • 2
    @FumbleFingers what about A Prosperous People? – phoog Jul 28 '15 at 16:07
  • @phoog: What about them? There are 26 written instances of *are a prosperous people* in Google Books, but the only instance of the singular verb form is *is a prosperous, people-centred, compact city*, which doesn't match OP's context. – FumbleFingers Jul 28 '15 at 16:34
  • @FumbleFingers that's the British/American "the company is/the company are" distinction, but the predicate of both fragments ("is a prosperous people" and "are a prosperous people") is the singular "a prosperous people." – phoog Jul 28 '15 at 17:45
  • Consider: "They are a very family-oriented people", "Similar customs are found among many peoples of the world" -- H&P CGEL, page 345. I think this question on "people(s)" has come up before. – F.E. Jul 28 '15 at 18:48
  • @ F.E. Where is the link of that question ? I'd like to take a look at it. – stephenranger Jul 28 '15 at 18:53
  • I know that I've typed in those CGEL examples before, for some other threads. But I don't know if any answer posts in those older threads were solid or not. – F.E. Jul 28 '15 at 18:59
  • 1
    @phoog: Dunno about that. True, Americans tend to stick to Microsoft is* [doing something], where BrE also accepts the possibility that Microsoft are doing it. But no-one accepts The people is revolting*. – FumbleFingers Jul 28 '15 at 19:46
  • @FumbleFingers because "the people are revolting" is the plural of person. "a(n) X people" is the singular people, of which the plural is peoples. Sense 3 here: https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=people&submit.x=52&submit.y=22 – phoog Jul 28 '15 at 20:40
  • @phoog: thanks for the link to ahdictionary.com. It seems to explain things more detailed than dictionary.reference.com. I'll use it from now on. – stephenranger Jul 29 '15 at 04:32
  • @stephenranger keep in mind that it is an American dictionary. It does cover other varieties of English, but it will label British terms as British, in contrast to a British dictionary, which would label the American terms as American. – phoog Jul 29 '15 at 04:53
  • There are about 22,000 posts tagged wtih "people". – rogermue Aug 29 '15 at 16:29
  • 1
    The fact that it's predominantly plural is weird considering it comes from the French "peuple", being a collective, like a crowd. I don't know why nobody talked about the etymology and its evolution in old English in the answers, it would have been ver interesting. – Quidam Dec 28 '19 at 22:23

3 Answers3

19

The word people is predominantly plural (see Merriam-Webster's top definitions), although it can be singular.

According to this source (a Pearson Education Q&A),

In the PLURAL sense, people is used as the plural of person very frequently. It is a plural count noun and takes a plural verb. It never has an -s ending; it is already plural.

Most of the time, people will be plural; and as far as I can tell, you will never see the phrase people is--at least, not in a grammatically correct sentence.

Here is what that same source has to say of the singular people:

the SINGULAR sense of people is used to refer to ALL the men, women, and children of a particular tribe, nation, country or ethnic group, speaking of them as a UNIT, and so the phrase a great people is indeed singular. It is a singular count noun.

(Okay, people is appears as a phrase in that quotation, but is refers to phrase and not people.)

People, even when singular, should always take are.

For more on whether to use is or are, please visit the Online Writing Lab.

Jake Regier
  • 1,030
  • Per my comment to the OP, I don't think you can really claim a great people is "singular", since when used as a grammatical subject, it's invariably referenced using a plural noun form. – FumbleFingers Jul 28 '15 at 16:37
  • 6
    Regarding the singular sense, I cannot agree about 'people...should always take are'. One might say The Russians are a musical people, but that's because the subject is Russians - plural. What if you said A brave people is not cowed by the threats of a tyrant. – WS2 Jul 28 '15 at 16:42
  • 3
    @FumbleFingers Really? Should it be A brave people are not cowed...? – WS2 Jul 28 '15 at 16:43
  • @FumbleFingers I'm not sure I agree. All those examples in your link are things like we are a great people..., in which the subject is not "people". I'm still searching for an example with a people as the subject of a verb. – WS2 Jul 28 '15 at 16:49
  • @FumbleFingers The seventh definition of people from Merriam-Webster, given as a singular noun, is "the body of enfranchised citizens of a state"; the example given is "a people who migrated across the Bering Strait," in which people is interchangeable with group. Group, like people, is a collective noun -- which, according to Dictionary.com, "names a group of individuals or things with a singular form." That said, I did not claim a great people to be singular; my source did. – Jake Regier Jul 28 '15 at 17:08
  • 1
    @Jake: Well, let's not get bogged down in whether I'm taking issue with what you claim or what your cited source claims. The fact of the matter is some of the 10 written instances of this people shares are either "archaic" or "accidental collocations", whereas the 822 instances of these people share represent a commonplace usage. – FumbleFingers Jul 28 '15 at 17:28
  • @FumbleFingers But you are not comparing like with like. Your second example will include the word "people" when used as a plural noun. What if you try this people share". Does that return any more than this people shares*? – WS2 Jul 28 '15 at 18:40
  • Thanks for your link (a Pearson Education Q&A), Jake Regier, and thank you all for your comments here. It seems that "people is/are" is a complex issue. I'll be more careful when using it. – stephenranger Jul 28 '15 at 18:43
  • 1
    @WS2: I can only read the words in context in 4 of the claimed 7 instances of this people share, and one of those is an accidental collocation anyway. So I think we can safely say I wasn't introducing any significant distortion by choosing *these* rather than *this*, when contrasting singular/plural verb usages. – FumbleFingers Jul 28 '15 at 19:53
  • @FumbleFingers Sorry to belabour the point, but these people is clearly the plural people. It will always take the plural verb. And it cannot be singular otherwise it would be this people. So what we need to know is whether this people share exceeds or otherwise this people shares. My own sense is that we use both. – WS2 Jul 28 '15 at 20:10
  • 1
    @WS2: Well, I suppose I must accept that there are a few contexts where people can be used as a singular noun. To be honest, I got confused earlier, thinking I was on ELL. Technically speaking, The German people is* [whatever it is]* is "valid" (though I can't I like it much there). Interestingly, *is/are* are about equally common in that construction with *German, but with English* the plural verb is about twice as common. (I can't help wondering if the people who is saying stuff about Germans might include a higher proportion of non-native speakers! :) – FumbleFingers Jul 28 '15 at 20:36
  • @FumbleFingers I wonder is the people aware it is doing this? – Jake Regier Jul 28 '15 at 20:38
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers I think it is the case that when people is used in the singular sense, it is rarely the subject of a verb. In Germans are an artistic people it is the complement. And I think that is largely how it is used. But its status in the rare instances when it takes on as subject is unclear. I still incline towards A great people is noted for its culinary tradition. – WS2 Jul 28 '15 at 21:01
  • @FumbleFingers : I don't say anything bad about the Germans. I just cite one of Hitler's sayings about the Germans that I stumble on in a book as an example here. You know what I mean ? – stephenranger Jul 29 '15 at 04:28
5

"PEOPLE" is a collective noun/group noun singular in form but is used as plural.

  1. PEOPLE/(s)" can be both singular and plural if refers to the body of enfranchised or qualified citizens; nation ,class, ethnic group, persons under common ruler, kith and kin etc.

  2. However, COD defines 'a warlike people' as singular.(usually no plural) when the meaning is nation / a community.

3.People referring to persons in general is singular in form and takes plural verb.i.e, always plural.

To sum up, people is generally plural and takes a plural verb.

Barid Baran Acharya
  • 2,343
1

These are semantics, but semantics are exactly the subject here, so I will give it a shot.

Many dictionaries consider collective nouns singular, however this is more a common use definition. In truth, think of collectives as singular plurals. They are handled and spelled as a singular, but remain plural. "People are" remains the correct form in usage. It is referring to a single collection of people.

Some grammar guides and dictionaries state that pluralizing such collectives is incorrect. This is again via what is becoming common usage, it is not from grammar rules, though in time common usage rules do become grammar rules. Though it is often omitted is common practice, is certainly remains correct to pluralize a collective. Just because it is becoming steadily more common to see constructs such as "The people of Europe..." does not invalidate the form "The peoples of Europe..." The first form refers to all of the people of Europe as a single collective. The second for refers to multiple collections of people in Europe as a collection of groups, read it similar to "The many peoples of Europe..."

dlb
  • 11