WORDS THAT ARE, OR LOOK LIKE, 
SINGULARS OR PLURALS BUT 
MAY IN MARKED SITUATIONS 
BE USED OTHERWISE

© 2001 by Orchid Land Publications

C.-J. N. Bailey

[updated 5-11-01]

     There are four basic kinds of nouns (besides nominalized adjectives:  These are (1) counted nouns; (2) abstract nouns; (3) mass nouns; and (4) collective nouns. Refer to details by consulting the index to C.-J. N. Bailey, Essays on time-based linguistics analysis (Oxford University Press, 1996).  Collectives can be treated as singulars or (in some instances) as plurals; the plural emphasizes the individual constituents (e.g. "these United States"), but in British usage collectives thought of as teams are regularly treated as plurals (e.g. "Scotland are winning").   Majority is often plural.  A different  situation (see pp. 122-123, 179, 183-184) is presented by the N in the Q of N context, where Q is a quantifier other than no(ne) or (not) a single.  In "a lot of books have arrived" and "lots of equipment has arrived," a lot and lots are quantifiers, and the phrase is treated as a singular or plural according to the object of "of."  Conversely, when one says or hears "a lot of books has arrived" and "(two) lots of those items have arrived," a lot and lots are not quantifiers and their singular or plural character determines the verb's agreement.

     What is to be dealt with here is where non-counted nouns (those in categories 2-4) agree with a singular verb like is or was or with a plural like are or were.  One hears on a daily basis errors even by the most educated commentators.  The main problem is knowing which forms are default and how they change their status in non-default uses (explained in the preceeding reference under the rubric of reversals in marked contexts).   Thus, the plural of mouse is irregular; but when it functions as the plural of a computer mouse, it is regular-- mouses.  Conversely, a normally regular plural might become irregular in a special use.    Other parts of speech are affected (cf. sunken and sunk, rotten and proven [attributives] as oppsed to  rotted and proved [predicative anterior participles]; parallel are burnt : burned and aged : ag'd).  See details on p. 24 of Bailey, "Why more English instruction won't mean better grammar" (Orchid Land Publications, 1991).  Note the different meanings (when not sentence-final) of hafta/hasta/hadda as opposed to have to/has to/had to, 've gotta as opposed to have got [something] to do, useta and used [something] to do it with, wanna as opposed to want [something] to work . . . and so with be sposeta : be supposed to and be bounda : be bound to.  See further in ibid., p. 10.  Many adverbs drop final -ly when functioning as intensifiers; consider the use of the following when -ly is dropped: hard, most, very, just, bloody, right, clear, stark, pretty, sure, awful.  This is but a sample.

    While English has pretty well lost sight of the plurality of data, there is still something to be said for the plurality of phenomena, criteria, bacteria, etc.--whose singulars have the Greek ending -on and the Latin ending -um.

     Ignoring a discussion of stuffs (pl. or stuff) in Hawai'ian Creole (the form means "kinds of cloth" in English), let the following uses be noted; see details on pp. 173, 177, 184, in Bailey, Essays on time-based linguistic analysis (the footnote on p. 307 deals with examples like mouses):                 

         The writer has a long list of these items.  When he finds it, he will finish this table.  

[PAGE UNDER CONSTRUXION]