0

"I have a few trousers bought from Mark and Spencer that need to be altered." In this context "need" or "needs to be altered"?

tchrist
  • 134,759
John Lee
  • 37
  • 1
    It's strange that you should use the American word "pants" (BrE = "trousers") in connection with a store that has no presence in the US. – BillJ Apr 07 '18 at 10:33
  • Haha alright I can change to trousers.. – John Lee Apr 07 '18 at 11:15
  • 'Pairs of pants' and 'pairs of trousers' are idiomatic in the UK (the first in informal registers). 'A few pants / trousers' are not. But a question about the correct verb-form to use here (need) is not on-topic. – Edwin Ashworth Apr 07 '18 at 11:22
  • Other than when referring to the item of underwear "pants", virtually no one in the UK says "pair(s) of pants". The idiomatic term in the UK is "pair(s) of trousers". – BillJ Apr 07 '18 at 11:32
  • @John Kim To answer your question, "trousers" is plural only and thus requires a plural verb, i.e. "need". Note that we would normally say "pairs of trousers". Compare the singular "I have a pair of trousers that needs altering", with singular "pair / needs", though you'll often hear the plural "need" used. – BillJ Apr 07 '18 at 11:57
  • 1
    Even if it were "potatoes" it would be "need", not "needs". "Need" is the 3rd person plural form of the verb, and a "few" anything is plural. – Hot Licks Apr 07 '18 at 12:31
  • 1
    @HotLicks It need not be plural when used as a modal. – tchrist Apr 07 '18 at 13:25
  • 1
    "A few trousers" always means more than one pair of trousers, and so is indisputably plural. If you are talking about only one item of clothing, you would refer to it as trousers, some trousers, or a pair of trousers. – Peter Shor Apr 07 '18 at 14:22
  • @PeterShor That’s a curious case. Some trousers stain easily is grammatical to me in a way that ⁕a trousers is not. These trousers are seems more likely to refer to a grouping of pairs of trousers like a bunch of them on a store shelf, not to just one particular pair. Odd given how English has few if any “plurals of plurals” in practice; this might be one though. – tchrist Apr 07 '18 at 14:32
  • 1
    Possible duplicate of Is "pair of scissors" more correct than "scissors"? which treats plurality even though it isn't in the title. – Peter Shor Apr 07 '18 at 14:38

2 Answers2

1

TLDR: That should instead read:

  • I have a few pairs of trousers that need to be altered.

On pluralia tantum

Like the words cattle, scissors, and genitals, the words pants and trousers are what specialists in these matters refer to as pluralia tantum. That means that they are defective¹ nouns that only show up already plural in form with no corresponding singular noun to go with their plural versions.²

It also means for lack of a singular, they can never be used as count nouns, since that would require the existence of a singular — which is what you have ungrammatically attempted to do here. Because there is no such thing as ⁕one trouser or ⁕a trouser, neither is there such a thing as ⁕a few trousers, either, which is why your formulation is ungrammatical.

You therefore must only use such pluralia tantum “partitively” — as though they were mass nouns — such as by saying this pair of trousers, or these pairs of trousers, or a few pairs of trousers. That way the word for the set, here pair/pairs, carries the actual number governing agreement with the verb.

  • This pair of trousers needs to be altered. [singular subject and verb]
  • These pairs of pants need to be altered. [plural subject and verb]
  • I have a few pairs of pants that need to be altered. [plural subject and verb]

You can search for other postings on this site related to these grammatical oddities via this link.

On semi-modal verbs used as modals

Three may also be some confusion here over your choice of need/needs that stems from that verb’s occasional use as a true modal, a word-class that is also defective with respect to inflectional variants. The semi-modal verb need, which is used as a true modal only in negative or formal interrogative contexts, does not inflect for person, number, or tense when a modal. It also takes only a bare infinitive not a to-infinitive when doing so:

  1. This pair of pants needs to be altered. [singular subject and verb]
  2. This pair of pants does not need to be altered. [singular subject and verb]
  3. This pair of pants need not be altered. [singular subject but modal verb]

The inverted negative in need not is what triggers true modal use there in the final example.

Another semi-modal verb that can be used in this curious way is dare and for some speakers, ought. Like need, these can be true modals only in negative or interrogative contexts. They might sound formal to some writers, or not occur at all in some speakers.

Footnotes

  1. A “defective” word in some word-class is one that does not admit some or all of the inflectional variants which that particular word-class is subject to under regular inflectional morphology. So for example, a defective noun might be one without any plural to go with it, a defective verb might be one with only a past tense but no present tense, and a defective adjective might be one that has no comparative degree formed by adding -er.

  2. Attributive use like pant leg, genital mutilation, or scissor kick doesn’t count as an actual singular, because even a plurale tantum like these take a form that doesn’t look plural when it is used attributively to modify another noun. But compare cattle prod because there is no way to “make” the word cattle look singular (unlike with pants, scissors, and genitals, three words that you hope never to find together in the same sentence).

Community
  • 1
tchrist
  • 134,759
  • I hate to disagree, but in this case you're wrong: a few pants is not that less frequent than a few pairs of pants. See Ngram. And in my dialect they mean exactly the same thing (you would not refer to one pair of trousers as a few trousers). And since this is talking about more than one item, it's indisputably plural. – Peter Shor Apr 07 '18 at 14:30
  • It does seem that if you want to phrase it in a way that all English speakers think is grammatical, you would need to say "a few pairs of pants." Interesting. – Peter Shor Apr 07 '18 at 14:36
  • @PeterShor I need to think about this a little. I feel like the plural you mention might be a rare “plural of plural” case in my personal idiolect. – tchrist Apr 07 '18 at 14:37
  • and I have now realized that I probably wouldn't say "a few scissors", even though "a few trousers" sounds fine. Very curious. – Peter Shor Apr 07 '18 at 14:40
-4

I beg to differ, based on Cambridge dictionary, the sentence must be corrected - add an apostrophe (pants’ or trousers’ to express plural). “I have a few trousers’ bought from Mark and Spencer that need to be altered”. Do you use third person word (needs) with plural word (trousers’)?

MeGrammar
  • 13
  • 1
    This is incorrect: one “never” adds an apostrophe to a non-possessive noun in English to make it plural. We have many questions on this site that spell this out plainly, including the rare apparent exception made for non-lexical symbols like 4’s or *’s. – tchrist Apr 07 '18 at 14:11
  • @tchrist What's with the scare-quotes around "never"? – Dan Bron Apr 07 '18 at 14:14
  • @DanBron Minding my p’s and q’s. – tchrist Apr 07 '18 at 14:17
  • Well, I did say that it was based on “Cambridge Dictionary”. It was not my own answer. – MeGrammar Apr 07 '18 at 14:22
  • Then do please provide the full citation that you are alluding to so that we might understand it better. – tchrist Apr 07 '18 at 14:24
  • 1
    The Cambridge Dictionary could not have possibly said this; they know English grammar. – Peter Shor Apr 07 '18 at 14:34
  • That’s what I’m looking for now. I recalled well that it was stated so that it can be used that way, maybe it was my mistake in comprehending the use of apostrophe. – MeGrammar Apr 07 '18 at 14:38
  • Opps! My mistake! I got it wrong! My apology. – MeGrammar Apr 07 '18 at 14:50