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

This is a sentence in a book by Rudy Giuliani.

I could ensure my deputies and commissioners were working off the same page and could carry a coherent message back to their staffs.

Isn't staff a mass noun with no plural when referring to people?

share|improve this question
Related Is "staff" plural? – Kit Z. Fox Jul 18 '11 at 12:18

Presumably Rudy Giuliani meant that each of his deputies and commissioners could carry a message to his or her staff.

This means several staffs

share|improve this answer

Yes, Staff is already plural. It refers to the people working for someone.

However, there are cases where it makes sense to use a plural form of a quantity noun. Chiefly this occurs in the cases where there are multiple different and distinct groups of the objects in question. This could well be argued to be the case where you are talking about the staffs of several different people. (I do so find myself wanting to say staves here. :-) )

Another good example shows up with the accepted answer for a recent question here: What is the plural of ivy?

share|improve this answer
+1 for staves. – Toby Jul 18 '11 at 12:37
Army is plural (in containing lots of soldiers) but two armies meet n a battle. – mgb Jul 18 '11 at 16:31

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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