Another solution to the person/people problem
It's been a while (Ben Zimmer
here,
with links back to postings by Mark Liberman and Geoff Pullum) since we
reflected on the plural of
person:
persons or
people? Now Opal Eleanor
Armstrong Zwicky, aged 2, offers a fresh solution, which ruthlessly
applies logic to the problem and also (in the spirit of prescriptivism)
clarifies stylistic choices by just discarding one of the alternatives.
For some time Opal had no plural marking by suffixes (she might, at
least occasionally, have been marking plurality via the number word
two, as many children do, so
that "two dog" just meant "dogs" and could be used for large groups of
dogs; it's often hard to tell what a small child's intentions are,
however). Then, suddenly, plural suffixes rushed in, along with
possessive suffixes, and on 3/22/06 her mother, Elizabeth Daingerfield
Zwicky, reported the following dialogue:
Opal: Peoples!
Me: Are there? I didn't see them.
Opal: One people.
Me: Oh, there was just one person? No wonder I missed them.
Opal: No person! One people!
You can see the wheels of logic turning here. Where she had
"lotsa people" before, she now needs a plural form, which would of
course be "peoples". For her, this is not a double plural (the
way it seems to us), but just an ordinary plural, like "dogs".
Ok, nobody around her says "peoples", they all say "people" for this
meaning, but she has logic on her side, and anyway, as prescriptivists
sometimes tell us, even if a whole lot of people use some form they
could still all be wrong wrong wrong.
Then, once you have "peoples", it follows, as must the night the day,
that the singular is "people". Hence, "one people". Ok,
once again, nobody around her says "one people" -- she's now
managed to have
ALL occurrences of the lexical item
people diverge from the adult
standard -- but Logic Ruulz.
What about the lexical item
person?
We don't have records of the speech of people around her, but I'll bet
that plural "persons" is extremely rare in this speech, and that
singular "person" is not particularly frequent (think about how often
you really need this form in everyday conversation, when more specific
nouns are available, as are indefinite pronouns like
someone). On the other hand,
occurrences of "people" abound. [Brett Reynolds reports, by e-mail on 3/25/06, that in the British National Corpus, spoken register, "people" is the #1 most common noun, with "person" at #59, and "persons" not in the top 1000.  I'd imagine that "person" is even rarer in speech directed at young children than it is in speech in general.] So, Opal reasons: I have
"people(s)" available for reference to human beings, why do I need
"person(s)"? That would just be pointless stylistic variation,
like having both "that" and "which" available for marking restrictive
relative clauses.
DISCARD ONE OF THE ALTERNATIVES.
In particular, discard the less frequent alternative. Hence, "No
person! One people!"
Eventually, she will come to appreciate the fact that what rules in
these situations is not Logic but Society. She will have to bow
to the common usage of those around her. Or, to put it another
way, it will be time for her to join a community, rather than inventing
language on her own. [Update on 3/30/06: "peoples" has already vanished in favor of "people"; I suspect that "one people" has a very brief future.]
zwicky at-sign csli period stanford period edu
Posted by Arnold Zwicky at March 25, 2006 11:28 AM