Noun that must be plural?

Asked Mar 08 '17 at 03:41

Active Mar 08 '17 at 09:10

Viewed 51 times

I was looking at the word "riches" and noticed that it doesn't have a singular form. I can have riches, but I can't have a rich.

As far as I can think there are no other nouns like that, apart from nouns like "jeans" or "pants". Even nouns where the plural form is the same as the singular form can have a singular form. I can have fish, and I can have a fish, etc.

asked Mar 08 '17 at 03:41

Aeddon

1

I made a post a while back that has some relevant words, I think: Are there nouns that are always plural — have no plural counterpart? Some possible candidates: clothes, measles, mumps, ides. The other answers on that page should also be helpful. – herisson Mar 08 '17 at 03:48
1

Hello and welcome. Are you looking for the term plurale tatum, or lists thereof? I'm not sure what your question is specifically asking for. – Lawrence Mar 08 '17 at 03:58

Noun that must be plural?

0 Answers0