English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Can you please clarify the relation and differences between these nouns?

For example, is it proper to use "persons" instead of "people"? Are they the same? As I believe that "people" is plural, how come there exists the plural of the plural (=peoples)? Does it have any usage?

share|improve this question
up vote 10 down vote accepted

The dreaded Elements of Style have this to say on this matter:

The word people is not to be used with words of number, in place of persons. If of "six people" five went away, how many "people" would be left?

So at least in formal or technical discourse you might want to prefer "persons".

I have also observed that "persons" is generally and widely used in official documents, highway signs, etc. in Britain, Canada, and the U.S.

In informal contexts, however, "people" is probably preferable, especially as it will allow you to steer clear of the, er, people from all walks of life who will try to tell you that "persons" is not a valid word at all.

But as both your question and Strunk point out, you should avoid mixing them too much, because there is no exact correspondence between "person"/"persons" and "people"/"peoples".

share|improve this answer

The difference between "people" and "peoples" has been answered here: People or peoples when referring to an indigenous population?

Persons would be used as a the plural of person when you are not referring to a group collectively but to a collection of individuals. For example, "Many people like ice cream," but "Corporations are considered persons under the U.S. Consitution."

share|improve this answer
"Many persons like ice cream" used to be the correct usage traditionally, but this has change in modern times. – Noldorin Sep 7 '10 at 21:06
@Noldorin: evidence for that statement? – delete Sep 8 '10 at 0:02
@Ex-user: Etymonline supports this indirectly with: person early 13c., from O.Fr. persone "human being"; people late 13c., "humans, persons in general,"...Replaced native folk. – Jon Purdy Oct 27 '10 at 15:12
I have always understood that there is a straightforward difference, as Doug points out. When you refer to any one person, "persons" is correct. "No entry to unauthorized people" would suggest, admittedly only to those trying to misunderstand perhaps, that individually an unauthorized person may enter, "No entry to unauthorized persons" relates to any individual unauthorized person. – Matt Jan 16 '13 at 8:50
Thank you for the explanation. So, is statement: That was a four persons party. correct? If not, then what it should be? – Surya Oct 7 '14 at 7:53

In British English at least, "persons" is generally considered a more formal word than "people", e.g. it is often used in formal announcements or notices.

"Persons wishing to carry on hand luggage should consult the steward beforehand"

See also Doug's answer for more considerations.

share|improve this answer
Please don't ever use "persons" though as it's Pooterish. – user774 Sep 7 '10 at 16:09
I'm from England, and I'm not familiar with the word being seen as "Pooterish" or bad in any way, just weirdly formal. – Zaz Feb 13 '15 at 19:18

protected by tchrist Feb 22 '15 at 0:23

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.