Timeline for Looking for a term that is ambiguous whether it's singular or plural of person
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 15, 2022 at 19:34 | comment | added | ermanen | I've updated my answer to make it as clear as possible. | |
| Sep 15, 2022 at 19:30 | history | edited | ermanen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 425 characters in body
|
| Sep 15, 2022 at 19:12 | comment | added | ermanen | I've explained the reason why I've posted as an answer and the OP was ok with my suggestion in the comments first. I wasn't planning to post as an answer otherwise. It is up to the OP. The question has a wiggle room per the details also and open to interpretation to some extent. The ambiguity is related to using "the folk" (more archaic or dialectal) instead of "folks"; (the usual form) for the meaning "men, people indefinetely". I think this whole discussion proves that it is ambiguous :) There is also some ambiguity regarding US and UK usage difference. | |
| Sep 15, 2022 at 18:53 | comment | added | Laurel♦ | Then it's not "ambiguous whether it's singular or plural person" or "tricks people into thinking it refers to one person", like the question asked. | |
| Sep 15, 2022 at 18:34 | comment | added | ermanen | @Laurel I've never said it refers to a single person. | |
| Sep 15, 2022 at 18:09 | comment | added | Laurel♦ | In what dialect or timeframe does "folk" refer to a single person? Certainly not any dialect I've heard. (Except maybe in extremely restricted situations such as "he is a merfolk", which wouldn't work for the question.) I also checked the Middle English Dictionary, which shows that "folk" and "folks" were synonymous, both referring to a plurality of people. | |
| Sep 15, 2022 at 13:09 | comment | added | Peter Shor | I don't think this works. When I hear folk, my first reaction is that it refers to several people. If you wanted a word that would surprise readers when they discovered it referred to only one person, this would be perfect, but you want something that works the other way around. | |
| Sep 15, 2022 at 10:26 | comment | added | ermanen | Yes but also the ambiguity is even stronger with its two forms: folk and folks; and the archaic or literay usage with "the folk" to mean men, people indefinetely. Not the usages like "old folk", it could be common as you mentioned. However, I might delete this if the OP decides on another approach. Not all native speakers can see the nuance and it might not be intended for native speakers. | |
| Sep 15, 2022 at 10:16 | comment | added | psmears | @ermanem: OK. The OP said they wanted something that will "imply singular with it leaving room for plural". I'm pointing out (since I'm guessing they may not be a native speaker) that "folk" does not imply singular - to any native speaker it will imply plural. | |
| Sep 15, 2022 at 10:05 | comment | added | ermanen | @psmears Yes the ambiguity is not about that it doesn't have a singular meaning; it is about folk being a collective noun and has some other plural senses; however it can "look" singular. I confirmed with the OP before posting as an answer. It was a comment before as I've mentioned. | |
| Sep 15, 2022 at 10:03 | comment | added | psmears | @ermanem: It does have other meanings, but the meaning that people will understand if you use it in this context is the plural one, because that's by far the most common - for example, it's the only meaning listed in this dictionary for folk as a noun. | |
| Sep 15, 2022 at 9:59 | comment | added | ermanen | @psmears I believe it depends on the usage and context as folk has multiple senses/usages. | |
| Sep 15, 2022 at 9:52 | comment | added | psmears | "Folk" in the singular is perfectly common and normal (at least here in the UK); "folks" comes across as a little colloquial/affected. But I'm not sure it works here, because even in the singular is meaning is always plural ("people"). | |
| Sep 15, 2022 at 9:42 | comment | added | ermanen | I've posted this answer because the OP agreed in the question comments that folk is an apt word when I first posted as a comment and asked if it works for the intended approach. David's answer is even better though. | |
| Sep 15, 2022 at 9:31 | history | answered | ermanen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |