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

Why is it that the plural of 'blood' is 'blood' in normal usage but 'bloods' (e.g. 'I'll be taking some bloods') is acceptable in a medical context? Are there any words with similar pluralisation anomalies?

This odd pluralisation may be confined to British English, here are some examples






UPDATE: I'm struggling to find online examples of this usage outside of midwifery as per the links above. Now I'm wondering if 'bloods' is actually a pluralisation that refers to both the mother and baby's blood. Has anyone an example of a medical usage outside of pregnancy?

share|improve this question
I have never heard "I'll be taking some bloods," and it sounds very strange to me. What is the context? Are they talking about taking blood from more than one person? If that's the context, it makes sense to me. Otherwise, I'd say no, it's not acceptable. – Peter Shor Aug 25 '11 at 14:30
The Bloods — isn't that a street gang in LA or something? – GEdgar Aug 25 '11 at 14:39
@GEdgar: Yes, and members of their rival gang, The Crips, might be very likely to say "I'll be taking some Bloods." – oosterwal Aug 25 '11 at 22:41
The plural of "blood" is not "blood" in normal usage. In normal usage, "blood" is a mass noun that it always grammatically singular and simply does not take a plural form at all. – sumelic Apr 11 at 13:36

"Bloods" is not a plural of "blood", but rather, the shortening of "blood test", often among medical professionals. Thus, that explains why "bloods" is acceptable in a medical context.

share|improve this answer

There is no plural blood - it is uncountable noun.

Blood in medical context probably is slang term for blood sample or blood test, as @Thursagen points, which makes it countable and subject to normal pluralization rules.

share|improve this answer

The word "blood" is inherently plural.

The only time I'm aware of the word "bloods" being usable is in reference to the LA street gang. In that case it makes sense because a "Blood" is a member of the gang, and people are countable.

So if someone says, "I'll be taking some bloods", the only way I know to interpret that is that they are bringing along some gang members with them.

share|improve this answer
+1 - You beat me to it. – oosterwal Aug 25 '11 at 22:42
"Blood" is inherently plural?! What does that mean? Should I say "Blood travel through the circulatory system" with a plural verb? – sumelic Apr 11 at 13:38

They might be using bloods in the meaning of blood containers. I am not sure but since you heard it in medical context then that could be.

share|improve this answer
please refer to my updated question. it may be confined to brit-english and obstetrics. – 5arx Sep 2 '11 at 21:28

I don't know where you have been but the term Bloods is used on a daily basis in hospitals and doctors surgeries. It is totally wrong to use bloods when referring to one person as they only have one blood. But it is correct when referring to a number of people.

share|improve this answer

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.