0

The Northwest Territories of Canada are only one territory, and the Papal States in Italy consisted of only one state. Why is the plural used? (In Italian, one says "Stato Pontificio", which is singular.) Are there other examples?

Michael Hardy
  • 2,506
  • As a Canadian, I've always assumed the Northwest Territories was a set of aboriginal lands that have been collectively referred to as a single governed unit, even though there aren't really any clearly distinguishable units within it. Although I have no evidence to back this up. – Octopus Jul 15 '17 at 06:55
  • Ah, 'Why is 'Northwest Territories' plural in form. Yes, I'm reading this as 'Why is 'Northwest Territories' given plural agreement here'. //// Merely preserving / emphasising the original logical plurality involved, as with the United States (contrast the United Kingdom), The Alps, the Maldives, the Badlands.... Note that 'The Trossachs is a well-known tourist attraction' combines a plural form with a singular verbform, stressing sequentially the multi-element make-up and the unified region. Note also that 'the Himalayas' and 'the Himalaya' are both used. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 15 '17 at 07:14
  • related: How to treat a country name that has a plural meaning{/form} and Is the USA {given} singular or plural {agreement}? – Edwin Ashworth Jul 15 '17 at 07:32
  • 2
    "the Papal States in Italy consisted of only one state." Not in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_States -- Same with Northwest Territories. – michael.hor257k Jul 15 '17 at 09:06
  • @Octopus I've written elsewhere on ELU that etic plurality, morphological plurality, and syntactical plurality need to be carefully distinguished in thought and writing. 'Why is the plural used?' does not do this. I've edited the question to disambiguate; I concede that morphological plurality was more likely intended here. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 15 '17 at 09:37
  • 1
    The Alps and the Himalayas are plural because there is more than one mountain, and the Maldives because there is more than one island, and the United States because there is more than one state. The badlands may not mean more than one distinct thing but the term does not refer to a single political entity. The Northwest Territories are just one political entity, as were the Papal States. – Michael Hardy Jul 15 '17 at 16:45
  • @michael.hor257k : Where in the Wikipedia article you linked to does it say the Papal States were formerly more than one state? – Michael Hardy Jul 15 '17 at 16:46
  • 1
    Here's one place (out of many): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_States#Regional_governors – michael.hor257k Jul 15 '17 at 16:53
  • @michael.hor257k : That section doesn't say there was more than one state. It says "As the plural name Papal States indicates, the various regional components retained their identity under papal rule. The pope was represented in each province by a governor". The existence of administrative subdivisions of a state and of distinct cultural identities of different cities and regions within the state does not mean they were separate states. – Michael Hardy Jul 16 '17 at 16:25
  • @MichaelHardy The authors clearly disagree, otherwise they would not say "As the plural name Papal States indicates...". To my understanding, these "subdivisions" were sovereign entities before coming under papal rule. I don't think the concept of "state" was clearly established at that time. – michael.hor257k Jul 16 '17 at 17:03
  • @michael.hor257k : Do they cite any sources? Wikipedia is a magnificent thing and can lead you to authoritative sources, but it is as un-authoritative as anything can be, so merely saying that it's authors disagree doesn't amount to anything. – Michael Hardy Jul 16 '17 at 17:05
  • You may choose to accept this or not, that's entirely up to you - and it has nothing to do with the English language. I choose to accept it because it agrees with what I know in general. – michael.hor257k Jul 16 '17 at 17:12

1 Answers1

1

This History of the Northwest Territories article on the Wikipedia will give you a possible explanation.

We can't say this for sure, but it looks like the Territories have been rearranged so many times that no one can quite rule out the idea that they might be rearranged again, e.g. though further consideration of aboriginal land claims.