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.