language mini-rant

[jennlk]

When did 'they' decide that "persons" was a better word than "people" (as in "the team is 52 persons")? It grates, it does. It showed up about the same time as 'inclusive language', but honestly, how much more inclusive can you get than "people"? It's a horribly pretentious and clunky construction, reminiscent of the Victorian use of "limbs". grrr.

Comments

[blueeyedtigress.livejournal.com]

I firmly believe that this is symptomatic of a lack of a proper grasp of the English language. There are different forms of plural, as befits a mish-mash trade language. We say "one person" and "two people"; "one goose" and "two geese"; "one deer" and "two deer" ...

"Persons" is just as silly as "gooses" and "deers". But two of those are in common use, and their proponents harp on about the evolution of the language. Poppycock! First you learn the rules, then you can break them for effect. (We can has grammar nao, plz?)

[johnridley.livejournal.com]

Good idea; if someone uses "persons" try to work in something like gooses or deers (or even deerses) - and hope it bothers the other person, so you can say "if you can say "peoples" I can say "gooses".

Honestly though, I think it's just pretension. And incorrect pretension at that, similar to people who misuse "whom".

[renniekins.livejournal.com]

...or hippopotamusesis!

[johnridley.livejournal.com]

I wish I'd said that.

[kevinnickerson.livejournal.com]

But gooses is a perfectly reasonable word. It's just that it's a verb, not a noun.

[madtechie2718.livejournal.com]

My current pet hate is the latest bit of Brit sales-speak - excessive use of the reflexive pronoun; myself is being 'yourself'ed to death in quotations and other business correspondence.

A simple 'we are holding flight reservations for *you*' is quite sufficient, why does it have to be 'we are holding flight reservations for *yourself*'

I've been trying to goad them into a "yourself and yourself's wife" response, but so far have failed.

Should myself succeed in this, myself will feel justified in pitilessly and painfully murdering yourself.

(Well, not *YOU*, dear reader, but you get my drift)

We are starting the long process to buy a new $1 million+ MRI scanner - anyone who wants to get my business had better keep a very close watch on those damned reflexive pronouns!

[rmeidaking.livejournal.com]

It's because 'people' has taken on connotations beyond "plural of person." It's semi-odd these days to see a number ascribed to 'people'; journalists and others will go to great lengths (52 individuals, 52 players, 52 young men, etc.) to avoid putting a number before the word 'people'. 'People' means the great mass of humanity; the population of the United States; the entire race of, say, Inuits; far beyond the simple situation of being a plural form of a noun. As a result, they have begun to use a simple adaptation to mean the plural form of the noun, which is in fact grammatically correct in English. This form is more correct, in fact, if you happen to be a strict declensionist (for lack of a better word), who wants *all* nouns to become plural by the addition of 's' at the end of the noun. It's a trend.

Yeah, I don't want "women" to become "womans" or "children" turn into "childs" either, but we're headed there... :-)

[mbumby.livejournal.com]

I don't know that this is really a new formulation. I remember as a child (say, in the early '70s) having a conversation with my mother about the meaning of the word "people" (I think I'd been confused by hearing "peoples" on the radio).