Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

25

The only one I could find is cow/kine. However, kine is mentioned as an archaic plural of cow in most dictionaries including OED but Wikipedia and Wiktionary mentions as regional or dialectal also. Wordsmith does not count it as archaic and includes a contemporary usage: Kine is one of the very few words in English (other examples: I/we, me/us) that ...


19

The word buffalo is interesting because it can be both a singular and a plural noun as well as a verb whose conjugation is the same for both singular and plural subjects, and, when capitalized, the name of a city. Let's replace each instance of buffalo with a different word that acts similarly to the way that instance of buffalo is used and then parse ...


18

I'm not sure whether pronouns count: "I" versus "We". There are also some prefixes: e.g. "byte" versus "kilobyte"; and "ester" versus "polyester"; and possibly "pole" versus "dipole".


15

The Equatorial Guinean currency, the ekwele, has plural bipkwele.


11

Soap is both a countable and uncountable noun (i.e. a mass noun like milk). Usually, if you're in a grocery store, you'd ask: Where can I find soap? You could use the plural form, to convey that you're looking for a greater variety: Where can I find your soaps? I'm looking for something lavender-scented, or maybe a honey/butter mix. (Also see ...


7

When a word comes into English from another language (or as a coinage using parts from another language) with a countable noun sense, there are two possible approaches to pluralising; to also borrow the plural (hence criteria for criterion, and bacteria for bacterium) or using the normal -s and similar productions of English plurals (pianos or the longer ...


5

If you are actually looking for more than one type of soap, then "I'm looking for soaps" is more accurate and therefore could be deemed more correct. Perhaps you have moved into a new house, without any cleaning products and you want to stock up and buy all sorts of soaps / detergents / etc...Then soaps is more fitting. However, you could also use "I'm ...


5

"A lot of water" is used with a singular verb. That means it is not plural, and it is not appropriate to label it as plural. Here are just some quotes from the Corpus of Contemporary American English for your convenience. And you have a lot of water that needs to run off ... the canals are lined only with gravel, and a lot of water is lost because ...


5

Bare plurals in English have two basic kinds of interpretations: generic and existential. The generic interpretation, as in (1) and (2) typically names a kind of thing, and in this respect, although not really singular, doesn't refer to any actual instances of the kind. Robins are birds. I like robins. The existential interpretation, as in (3) and (4) ...


4

As the expression 90-minute functions as an adjective, it is not pluralised and your first option is correct.


4

If a noun is modified in creating a noun phrase, you pluralise the noun hence: Courts-martial Happy hours Passsersby Daughters-in-law Two-head nouns have both nouns pluralised if the plural of the first is irregular, but only the second otherwise: Menservants City-states Longer compounds will sometimes though begin to be ...


3

The first would be soups of the day. soup of the days sounds like a single soup for multiple days, although I don't think I've ever heard of such a thing (even if you had the same soup on two days, there's not much point in grouping them). If you want two bowls of today's soup, it would be two orders of the soup of the day or two bowls of the soup of the ...


3

We can explain it in steps: Buffalo buffalo = buffalo from Buffalo buffalo = verb meaning to intimidate English allows relative clauses without overt relative pronouns. So Buffalo buffalo (that) Buffalo buffalo buffalo = buffalo from Buffalo that buffolo from Buffolo intimidate This whole phrase is itself the subject of another instance of the verb ...


3

The head noun of "the number of Koalas" is "number", which is singular, and since it is head, it makes the entire noun phrase singular. The relative clause "which are native to Australia" goes with the noun phrase "Koalas", and "which" refers to Koalas. The relative clause "which is declining alarmingly" goes with the noun phrase "the number of Koalas", ...


2

Amount vs. Number General Rule: Amount is used in reference to mass nouns Number is used in reference to count nouns Mass Noun A noun denoting something which cannot be counted (e.g. a substance or quality), in English usually a noun which lacks a plural in ordinary usage and is not used with the indefinite article, e.g. We ...


2

It's "firms" and "vet": The firms will gather and vet prospective buyers. You'll also want to use "firms" in the preceding sentence: The Hawks have retained investment banking firms Goldman Sachs and Inner Circle Sports to handle the sale process. "Firms" is plural because there are multiple firms (Goldman Sachs and Inner Circle Sports) and "vet" is the ...


2

The correct term is "which is". You are referring to the percentage (singular), so "89.9%, which is 57 million users" is the proper grammatical usage.


2

Your 1) is grammatical, though it is a bit unusual. Normally you'd just say Are A, B, and C in the box? or if you didn't expect the hearer to recognise the names as book titles: Are the books A, B, and C in the box? Your 2) is not grammatical. (I have changed inside to in in my examples. Inside is grammatical, but I would only use it if I was ...


1

So we can tell whether there is more than one sheep eating when someone says "The sheep are eating".


1

In your example, I would consider Jaws as a name, not as a plural noun jaws, which would indeed take just an apostrophe. When I was at school (in England over 50 years ago), we were taught that a name ending with s takes 's for the possessive, giving Jaws's laws. The rules or acceptable usage may have relaxed since then - one large example on the side of a ...


1

This is mere hypercorrection. It is an error to believe that and automatically creates two different things. It does not always do so. Because hope and prayer is one thing, it takes a singular verb: “My hope and prayer is that he should return unharmed.” It’s like saying “My lord and husband is away.” That’s just one person. Only if it referred to two ...


1

'Like' and 'ilk' have separate etymologies. 'Like' derives from Old Norse (líkr) while 'ilk' comes from Old English (ilca). Both are related to 'alike,' however. 'The likes of' as a phrase has a meaning of 'those similar to.' Those being plural, 'likes' is also plural. 'The like of' in the singular is unidiomatic, and would have a meaning of 'the one ...


1

You can use this construction, albeit with a bit of work. "Is there a S, or any P, on the shelf?" For example, "Is there a suit, or [perhaps] some nice clothes, in the closet?" "Are there any P, or a S, on the shelf?" For example, "Are there any snacks, or [maybe] an easy meal, in the refrigerator?" The commas help with the flow of the sentence - ...


1

It is certainly not always plural, but that does not mean I know of a "rule" for the form it should take. Fractional numbers greater than zero but less than one are singular. If your range were, for example, one-tenth to one-half of a mile, then "mile" must be singular. By convention, when we express ranges we almost always start the range with the smaller ...


1

In America, saying "soap" is usually taken to mean mild soap, (specifically bars, but including some kinds of mild liquid soap) for washing the body. Stronger formulas for washing clothes are generally called "detergent" or "laundry detergent". Solutions for cleaning say, countertops or floors might be called "household cleaners" or "cleaning supplies" ...


1

A correspondence I've seen mathematicians use goes something like x < 2, fewer than two x ≤ 2, at most (or no more than) two x = 2, exactly two x ≥ 2, at least two x > 2, more than two where x could be the number of messages. So in this case I recommend: "If there are fewer than 2 messages..."


1

Consider the sentence using the singular "child": Every child was convinced that Uncle Bob would go to the game. It makes intuitive sense when viewed in this context since "Every children" sounds weird. To fix this, we would have to specify some grouping of children. It follows that "every one" should be singular: Every one [of them] was ...


1

When in doubt, just reword the sentence: A corporation may not have a conscience, but it does have a PR department. ...or... Corporations have PR Departments, and if you don't have a conscience, a PR department will do. ...or... No corporation has a conscience. But all of them have PR departments. Of the options you proposed, the one that sounds best ...


1

They amount to the same thing. We could express it in the singular, the plural (as you have it) or with the uncountable government as in "the practice of governing": A just government ought to require employers to provide a living wage. Just governments ought to require employers to provide a living wage. Just government ought to require ...


1

I think it's a matter of opinion or preference. I would interpret it as singular. In this case specifically, I can't think of any government that would consider itself unjust. But if all governments consider themselves just, and different governments operate differently, then not all governments can be just... So the question uses the plural to refer to all ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible