# Person, persons, people, peoples



## Carmencita

In which contexts could "persons" be used instead of "people"?? For example, if I am talking about the people/persons who have attended a meeting, which one would be better??

Thank you, people


----------



## Artrella

Carmencita said:
			
		

> In which contexts could "persons" be used instead of "people"?? For example, if I am talking about the people/persons who have attended a meeting, which one would be better??
> 
> Thank you, people




*People: *  it is the usual plural of "person" in BrE.  When "people" means a group united by race, religion, or nationality it is considered a single unit and takes a singular determiner and verb.
Eg,
"Those people over there are rich" (plural of "person")
"This peace-loving people is being driven off its land" (group of people)


*Person:*it means an individual, or someone unknown.  "There is a person outside who wishes to see you".
"Person" is also used where references to an individual's sex might be considered inapproppriate: "We are looking for a person who can work well in a team".
Also, it is used in legal context:"The crime was commited by person or persons unknown", i.e. "person" means an unidentified individual.

In AmE, it is common to use the plural form "persons", rather than "people" if there are a few of them.  Eg, "There are three persosn in the car".  If we are talking about a larger group, we use (in AmE) "people"


So, Carmencita having read this, I'd say if you don't know the people, use "persons".

Suggestions?? Let's wait for the natives' point of view!

Art


----------



## cuchuflete

Carmencita said:
			
		

> In which contexts could "persons" be used instead of "people"?? For example, if I am talking about the people/persons who have attended a meeting, which one would be better??
> 
> *Thank you, people*


That's just right, Carmencita.  "Thank you, persons." would sound ridiculous.

Here are a few examples of the way AE speakers use these words:

Was the concert crowded?  Yes, there were more than fifty people there.
How many people do you need to play tennis?  At least two!

Those persons with opposing ideas are welcome to sit quietly, or leave.
Six or more persons shall constitute a quorum.

"Persons" is generally used for formal or legal statements, and is not common in ordinary speech.  The example given by Artrella, of three persons in a car,
might be used in a police report, but is not the way you and I would describe three people riding in a car.

ciao,
Cuchu


----------



## NavyBlue

If I had to guess, I would say the most common mistake Spanish people make when learning English is the omission of the third person singular *-s*.

However, the second big mistake would be the expression *people is*. Since _people_ can be translated as _gente_, and _gente_ takes a singular verb in Spanish.

My question is: I've always been taught that _*people*_ is the plural of *person*. I don't know whether that is accurate or just didactic. However, I've seen written _*persons*_ in some places. Is there any difference in meaning? Is _persons_ really common?

As usual, a million thanks in advance.


----------



## ~PiCHi~

I think People is the plural of person, but I don't find persons wrong.
I do find "Peoples" wrong.
It's like in spanish. People keep saying "gentes" instead of "gente" and it's wrong, but they just won't realize it.
I think that if you want to say a group of persons you should use PEOPLE.
But persons is not wrong.


----------



## te gato

NavyBlue said:
			
		

> If I had to guess, I would say the most common mistake Spanish people make when learning English is the omission of the third person singular *-s*.
> 
> However, the second big mistake would be the expression *people is*. Since _people_ can be translated as _gente_, and _gente_ takes a singular verb in Spanish.
> 
> My question is: I've always been taught that _*people*_ is the plural of *person*. I don't know whether that is accurate or just didactic. However, I've seen written _*persons*_ in some places. Is there any difference in meaning? Is _persons_ really common?
> 
> As usual, a million thanks in advance.


 
It is not wrong "persons" BUT!!! it is never said...we say people...
check ya later
karen


----------



## Focalist

Neither "peoples" nor "persons" is wrong, but they each have specialized meanings.

*Peoples* means "ethnic groups", e.g.

-- The many cultures and civilizations of the peoples of the world 


*Persons* is formal administrative English ("officialese") and often means something akin to "individuals", e.g.

-- (In a lift) Maximum capacity: 12 persons
-- Assistance for homeowners and landlords to improve accessibility for persons with disabilities

F


----------



## ~PiCHi~

Focalist said:
			
		

> Neither "peoples" nor "persons" is wrong, but they each have specialized meanings.
> 
> *Peoples* means "ethnic groups", e.g.
> 
> -- The many cultures and civilizations of the peoples of the world
> 
> F


 
I didn't know that!
Thanks for the tip!


----------



## NavyBlue

Focalist said:
			
		

> Neither "peoples" nor "persons" is wrong, but they each have specialized meanings.
> 
> *Peoples* means "ethnic groups", e.g.
> 
> -- The many cultures and civilizations of the peoples of the world
> 
> 
> *Persons* is formal administrative English ("officialese") and often means something akin to "individuals", e.g.
> 
> *-- (In a lift) Maximum capacity: 12 persons*
> -- Assistance for homeowners and landlords to improve accessibility for persons with disabilities
> 
> F


 
Exactly, Focalist. That was the context. As far as I can remember, I've only seen it written on lifts or buses referring to their capacity or requesting you to give up your seat to the elderly and people (persons  ) with restricted mobility.

Thank you all.


----------



## alc112

hi!!!
My teacher od english says that "Persons" is incorrect, but I don't think tthe same she does.
I want to know if I can use persons instead People.
Persons is colloquial or not? 
I know there's a thread related to this, but I didn't find what I wanted.

Thanks very much (not many, I can't count thanks)


----------



## garryknight

You can use 'persons' in some contexts. For example: "There is seating for 40 persons". And it isn't colloquial. You're more likely to see it in formal language.


----------



## Thomas1

hi alc112
i've found this:



> — USAGE The words *people* and *persons* can both be used as the plural of *person* but they are not used in exactly the same way. *People* is by far the commoner of the two words and is used in most ordinary contexts. *Persons*, on the other hand, tends to be restricted to official or formal contexts, as in _this vehicle is authorized to carry twenty persons_.





> _Compact Oxford English Dictionary_


 
so as Garry wrote persons is rather reserved for formal language

Thomas


----------



## Fritzybabe

Personally I think *people *is a more colloquial way to say the plural of *person*.

The term *persons *is reserved for written/formal English.

*Persons *implies that the collection of people are not a 'group'.

i.e. a sign on a bus: 'Standing for 8 persons only'

Whereas one person to another in a street situation:
'Look at all those people standing on that bus'

My advice is to use *people *but understand the subtle difference in usage of *persons*.

Fritzybabe


----------



## te gato

alc112 said:
			
		

> hi!!!
> My teacher od english says that "Persons" is incorrect, but I don't think tthe same she does.
> I want to know if I can use persons instead People.
> Persons is colloquial or not?
> I know there's a thread related to this, but I didn't find what I wanted.
> 
> Thanks very much (not many, I can't count thanks)


Hey alc112;
The word 'persons' is used more in Legal documents...and any 'form' of law document...
te gato


----------



## Jeremy Sharpe

I agree with one of the above posters. 'Persons' tends to be used if the individuality of the entities described is emphasized, OR in legal documents. 'People' is what everyone uses, and I use to more for groups of people. 'The common people of Canada'


----------



## LadyBlakeney

How interesting! So, for the sake of my understanding of the difference, could we say that "*persons*" is a synonym of "*individuals*"?

Thank you in advance.


----------



## te gato

LadyBlakeney said:
			
		

> How interesting! So, for the sake of my understanding of the difference, could we say that "*persons*" is a synonym of "*individuals*"?
> 
> Thank you in advance.


 
You can say...
persons...person..human..individual...they are all the same..the most comon way is to say 'person'..
It also depends on context..
Example: 'Are all persons considered human.' ...is correct to say...

te gato


----------



## ruizleo

Normally we use the word "person" to indicate singular, so I think the most common word to indicate prural is use "people" instead of "persons"


----------



## daviesri

I agree with all of the above. People is the word most commonly used.  Persons is usually only seen in formal documentation.


----------



## garryknight

It goes, in descending order:
individuals
persons
people
the public
the great unwashed


----------



## LadyBlakeney

garryknight said:
			
		

> It goes, in descending order:
> individuals
> persons
> people
> the public
> the great unwashed



Garry, thank you for the ranking!!!

I think I understand the phrase "the great unwashed", but I would like to be sure. Could anyone tell me about the connotations, uses or etymology of this term?

Thank you very much in advance.


----------



## cuchuflete

Lady B,

The term was coined by Victorian novelist Edward George Earl Bulwer-Lytton, though I haven't found the exact context yet. He is known today as a turgid writer of less than great quality, but he also 'invented' the opening line, "It was a dark and stormy night...".

Un abrazo,
Cuchu


PD- have a look here for synonymous phrases: http://thesaurus.reference.com/roget/VI/876.html


----------



## cuchuflete

Oooooops!  Answers dot com says it was Edmund Burke, English conservative philosopher: "It was Burke who first referred to the "great unwashed masses of humanity".


----------



## proofs

Whilst recently speaking with a Polish man, we discovered that we were unsure whether one says "I need a room for five persons" or "I need a room for five people". As he said, it being the case in Polish, people suggests more than one automatically so is five people therefore not five times the number of people, people being plural, and thus not possibly being the equivalent of five individuals?! So, really, five people would, following our (perhaps warped) logic constitute a minimum of ten persons... or is that people? 

That is the unfortunate direction in which our conversation went!!

But, what is/are the rule/s?


----------



## whatonearth

Plural of "person" = "people" - for example 
"there was one person at the bus stop"/"there were five people at the bus stop"

I think that is the simplest way of explaining it really!


----------



## Aupick

People 'suggests more than one automatically' because... it's the plural, just as 'men', 'women', 'animals', 'books' and any number of plural nouns suggest more than one.

It is true that some people seem to have decided that 'persons' is a more distinguished plural, when in fact it's only really used to state how many people you can fit in a lift/elevator before the rope snaps.

Here's a thread on the topic:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=14191


----------



## proofs

How stupid of me not to realise that "people" was, of course, the plural of person. 

But I take it that there is no hard and fast rule about when to use persons and when to use people. 

After all, having looked at the somewhat useful thread, why not say "reserved for people with disabilities" as opposed to "reserved for persons with disabilities". 

And why can't it be twelve people in a lift as opposed to twelve persons.

I suppose the point is that it can be twelve people in a lift, but why use persons ever?

And yet, as noted in the thread, it is something that crops up every now and again in written and, dare I say it, spoken English.

At this stage I am just wondering whether it will be the Brits or the Americans who will be in first to blame the other for the usage!


----------



## whatonearth

Americans, always the Americans...   

I'm not really sure why "persons" is ever used to be honest...I don't think it carries any meaning that "people" wouldn't/doesn't (12 persons/12 people). 

The only clear difference I can see is that "persons" would almost never be used in conversation, and "persons" (where it is used) is generally a more formal term for a number of people. Aside from that, I'm stumped!


----------



## Aupick

Yes, personally I would never use 'persons' in any situation, even in lifts, since I find it very irritating  . I don't see any advantage in using it.

It's possible it came to be used in lifts because what counts is not human beings as moral entities but lumps of flesh with a certain weight. It's a bit dehumanising, which might be the point in lifts, but is certainly not the point in other situations where it is more and more commonly used. To me it's similar to using male or female as nouns for men and women. Grrrr!


----------



## MarkLondres

whatonearth said:
			
		

> Americans, always the Americans...
> 
> I'm not really sure why "persons" is ever used to be honest...I don't think it carries any meaning that "people" wouldn't/doesn't (12 persons/12 people).
> 
> The only clear difference I can see is that "persons" would almost never be used in conversation, and "persons" (where it is used) is generally a more formal term for a number of people. Aside from that, I'm stumped!


 
To add to this confusion, people is increasingly being used in the signular by our politicians and public figures...

_"At a push it is even possible that there are one or two rotten racist apples in the police force, but by and large 'we are a tolerant people'. "_

Surely it is only a matter of time before this too is pluralized to "peoples". (person to the power 2)

The original 5 people that wanted the room in the hotel, will now mathematically be 25

M


----------



## santiagorf

Hi,
I'm confused when do I have to use the word people and persons since I understand that the plural of person should be people, but sometimes its plural appears as persons. I'll appreciate any explanation.


----------



## Old Novice

I don't know that there is a hard and fast rule. "Persons" seems to be used to identify a set of individuals with particular characteristics: a "missing persons report", or "persons with disabilities". The focus is on an individual, there just happen to be more than one of them. Another example is that when Time Magazine has more than one "Man [or Woman] of the Year", they identify the winners as "Persons of the Year."

"People" seems to refer to more general groupings, not sets of specific individuals.

However, this is just my impression. Maybe someone else knows for sure.


----------



## Snowman75

Just so you know, "people" is not actually the plural of "person". They are two separate words. It just happens that in most contexts "people" is used rather than "persons" when talking about more than one person.

I'm afraid I don't know the rules for when "persons" is actually used, but it seems like Old Novice might be on the right track.


----------



## GenJen54

Perhaps THIS thread might provide further clarification.


----------



## Lucretia

I guess it's just the usage area. *Persons *looksmore natural in a legal context. And it'd sound odd in vernacular speech.


----------



## padredeocho

In the US, you almost _never_ hear persons, unless it is associated with *missing persons*.  In the US, I would say when it doubt, use *people*.  You hear *person* a lot, but *people* is nearly always used as the plural for person.


----------



## Kevman

Snowman75 said:


> Just so you know, "people" is not actually the plural of "person". They are two separate words.


Really?  What do you call one out of a group of people?

I've always considered "persons" to be just a more formal version of "people", and here are two dictionary entries that seem to confirm that (as well as the consensus from JenGen's other thread).

There is of course the different definition of _a people_, referring to something like a nationality or an ethinc group in the singular.


----------



## Snowman75

Kevman said:


> Really?  What do you call one out of a group of people?
> 
> I've always considered "persons" to be just a more formal version of "people", and here are two dictionary entries that seem to confirm that (as well as the consensus from JenGen's other thread).
> 
> There is of course the different definition of _a people_, referring to something like a nationality or an ethinc group in the singular.


Ok, perhaps there isn't a consensus on this issue. I also consulted two dictionaries before making my previous post, and they both listed person and people as separate entries with no indication that they were related grammatically. One dictionary was online: person people. The other is the 1987 edition of the Macquarie Dictionary (the standard for Australian English, although granted my copy is now a little dated).

To answer your question about the singular of people, easy - it has no singular (just like "clothes" or "pants").

I guess in the end it's arbitrary whether or not you think of "people" as the plural of "person", but I figure since "person" already has a regular plural, "persons", which differs slightly in meaning from "people", it makes more sense to think of them as separate words.


----------



## Kevman

Well in your online dictionary entry for people the first two definitions are actually "persons" and the third is "human beings". "Human being" is the definition given in the first three citations for person.

I don't mean to pick on you, Snowman. It's just the first I've ever been exposed to this idea and I was interested to hear the justifications.  I can see where you're coming from, but to me personally (all dictionary definitions aside) there's no difference in meaning between _people_ and _persons_, just a difference in register.


----------



## Snowman75

It's ok, I don't feel strongly about the issue. I'd never even considered it until now.

However even if the only difference between *persons* and *people* is one of register (which I don't think is the case, incidently), that's still argument enough for calling them different words. I can't think of any other precedent for English having two versions of_ the same word_ for use in different registers. Of course there are many instances of _different_ words that have the _same meaning_ but are used in different registers.


----------



## maxiogee

Could it be that the report is actually a Missing Person*'*s Report?


----------



## Old Novice

maxiogee said:


> Could it be that the report is actually a Missing Person*'*s Report?


 
For single individuals, that would be logical.  But I believe that the plural is used routinely, also.  For example, here.  I don't think you'd ever say, "missing people report".


----------



## maxiogee

Old Novice said:


> For single individuals, that would be logical.  But I believe that the plural is used routinely, also.  For example, here.



Whereas in Kentucky…


----------



## Erik 182

Hi again,


I'm confused because I was told all the time that I cannot use persons as plural for people but in spite of this I hear it from lots of natives.

Maybe it works in talk or even in written BE or only AE. Have any of you guys noticed yourselves to say *"persons*" before? Is it a serious grammar mistake or just a slang or it is only for cracking a joke?
I have no ideal but it does not seem to be correct to me. Can somebody confirm it?

Thank you all


----------



## Lora44

I've never heard it as slang, the only time I can think of that I've heard it in spoken language is at a wedding:

'Are there any persons here present...'

Oh, and I noticed it in a lift the other day, there was a sign that said 'Holds 9 persons'.

I have no idea of the rules of when to use 'persons' as opposed to 'people', but it rarely has, in my opinion, a place in everyday spoken language.


----------



## JamesM

I agree.  "Persons" is not a common everyday word.  It is found in formal settings, such as the police statement of "murder by person or persons unknown." 

There is a colloquial use of "person" that might sound similar to you:

"A person's gotta (got to) eat." 
"You can't just rifle through a person's belongings; that's an invasion of privacy!"

In both cases, the sound is "persons" but it's actually singular. 

It can also be used in a humorous way:

"If certain _persons_ don't stop whining (referring to your children), I'm turning around and taking us all home."


----------



## agliagli

Hello, 

I've seen that the plural of person can sometimes be person*s* and not *people*. 

What is the difference between the two words?
How is each form used?

Thank you in advance.

Agli


----------



## hly2004

My 2 cent:

If the individuals are emphasised, then "persons" is preferable, othewise "people" is often more frequently used.


Best wishes.


----------



## maxiogee

I think 'persons' is a very legalistic word. The police often speak of 'person or persons unknown'.

I can't imagine someone saying "Daddy, there's two persons at the door. They'd like to speak to you."


----------



## winklepicker

hly2004 said:


> If the individuals are emphasised, then "persons" is preferable, othewise "people" is often more frequently used.


 
I profoundly disagree: this advice is no help at all to non-native speakers. In fact it's just plain wrong. Sorry! <Apologetic smiley>

People is often more frequently used in all circumstances. Persons is never preferable. As Maxiogee says, the only use of persons is in legalistic jargon. For practical purposes non-natives should never use _persons_.


----------



## river

"Persons" is used to stress individuals within a group:

"Glory to God in the hightest and peace to God's favored _persons_."

*"Jesus advises against inviting favored persons in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid."*


*source: Johnson, Luke Timothy, Sacra Pagina: The Gospel of Luke (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991)

*


----------



## winklepicker

river said:


> "Persons" is used to stress individuals within a group: "Glory to God in the hightest and peace to God's favored _persons_." *"Jesus advises against inviting favored persons in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid." **source: Johnson, Luke Timothy, Sacra Pagina: The Gospel of Luke (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991) *


 
To remind, the original question was:



Carmencita said:


> In which contexts could "persons" be used instead of "people"?? For example, if I am talking about the people/persons who have attended a meeting, which one would be better??


 
Carmencita (I am guessing) does not want to speak like the Bible. She wants to talk about who was in a meeting.

Can any of the proponents of _persons_ suggest ANY circumstances in which Carmencita might - in speech or in writing - need to use _persons_ instead of _people_? I can't think of any.


----------



## river

*In which contexts could "persons" be used instead of "people"?? *In a biblical context.

Other examples:

1. The following persons will be participating in the telephone conference: 
river 
winklepicker
carmencita

2. The persons responsible for this audit inquiry will be notifying your firm by January 31, 2007 for a response.


----------



## winklepicker

river said:


> In which contexts could "persons" be used instead of "people"?? In a biblical context.





river said:


> Other examples:
> 
> 1. The following persons will be participating in the telephone conference:
> river
> winklepicker
> carmencita
> 
> 2. The persons responsible for this audit inquiry will be notifying your firm by January 31, 2007 for a response.


As well as River's examples, you may also see _persons_ used in such circumstances as these:
_- Persons who park their cars here do so at their own risk_
_- The capacity of this lift is limited to 12 persons_

So, Carmencita, if you're planning to write a bible, a car park sign or notice in a lift, ignore me entirely. BUT

_The following people will be participating in the telephone conference_ *is not wrong.*
_The people responsible for this audit inquiry will be notifying your firm_ *is not wrong.*

So for all practical purposes it is easier (in my humble opinion) for non-natives to put the whole concept of _persons_ out of their minds, as the circumstances in which they might want to use it are so far-fetched. When you see_ perso_ns being used, you will know what it means. English learners have enough things to remember without burdening themselves with bothersome and unnecessary complications.

Returning to the original subject, the use of _peoples_ is specific: it is the plural of WRF Dictionary definition 3: 

- citizenry, people - the body of citizens of a state or country; "the Spanish people" 

Example: 'A History of the English-Speaking Peoples' (a book by Winston Churchill).

_Hmm - hope I can squeak this past the mods... _


----------



## marina6

winklepicker said:


> So for all practical purposes it is easier (in my humble opinion) for non-natives to put the whole concept of _persons_ out of their minds, as the circumstances in which they might want to use it are so far-fetched. When you see_ perso_ns being used, you will know what it means. English learners have enough things to remember without burdening themselves with bothersome and unnecessary complications.



I quite agree with you. And what is more, it seems to be 'a universal truth', including _monies_ and many other confusing words.

But still I'd like to ask a question about the use of _person(s)_ in one of the posts in this thread:



> In the end I think that for common (i.e. conversational usage) it may not matter as long as the point is made and the *person(s)* you are speaking with doesn't laugh in your face!


So, is it possible to write _person(s)_, if I don't know, whether there's one person or some people?
And in spoken English it would be _'... and the *person or people* you are speaking with *don't* laugh in your face'_, wouldn't it?
Or is it better to use _'person or people'_ both in written and in spoken English?


----------



## Old Novice

marina6 said:


> I quite agree with you. And what is more, it seems to be 'a universal truth', including _monies_ and many other confusing words.
> 
> But still I'd like to ask a question about the use of _person(s)_ in one of the posts in this thread:
> 
> 
> So, is it possible to write _person(s)_, if I don't know, whether there's one person or some people?
> And in spoken English it would be _'... and the *person or people* you are speaking with *don't*  laugh in your face'_, wouldn't it?
> Or is it better to use _'person or people'_ both in written and in spoken English?



I don't think there's a hard and fast rule about this, but in spoken English you would most often either use one or the other "person ... doesn't laugh" or "people ... don't laugh."  If you wanted to use both, in most cases you would use "person or people ... don't".  However, you will see cases in which "person or persons" is the right usage, which as I believe was noted earlier in this long thread, seem most often to be connected with legal contexts.  ("A break-in by person or persons unknown occurred at ...")


----------



## Dimcl

The reason that we seem to see "person/persons" used in legal/formal/official language is, in my opinion, because one of the meanings of "person" is "the body of a living human being" (ie. "I got to the checkout line at the store and realized that I had no money on my person").  This would explain why "persons" is used in an elevator... the elevator company doesn't care how many "people" ride at once so long as there are only xxx number of "persons" (bodies of living human beings).

To me, the word "person" is an ephemeral word with such subtle differences in meaning that I agree with Winklepicker... ESL students should likely use "people" (except as used in the example I've cited above) and not worry about trying to differentiate between "persons" and "people".


----------



## guinnesseal

I'm from the US, so there may be regional differences elsewhere, but here's my opinion: "Persons" is a terrible word.  Lawyers have to use it in some documents but this is the expression of an archaic custom, and it should never be used in any other context.  "People" is the correct and universally acceptable plural of "person."  "Persons" is awkward and arrogant in any context, and simply conveys the self-importance and arrogance of individuals who use it.


----------



## dec-sev

The manuals of the English language I have consider “persons” to be a mistake. How did it come about that something considered to be grammatically incorrect can be used in formal settings?
In Russian we have a word for “to phone”. It has two syllables and the correct way to pronounce it is with the stress on the second syllable. Still many stress the first one. Last year the Ministry of Education has made some changes to the rules of the Russian language. From now on both ways of pronouncing are considered to be correct. Some joke now: “It’s easier to change the rules than to teach people to speak the correct language”.
Is it the same with “persons”? I mean so many people consider the word to be OK that it should be OK for everybody?



winklepicker said:


> For practical purposes non-natives should never use _persons_.


 Why only non-natives?


----------



## Minotaur

I don’t quite understand what the fuss is about. These are two different words, with different etymologies, and each forms its plural in the normal way:

One person, two persons (‘Unauthorised persons will be refused admittance’)
One people, two peoples (‘A history of the English-speaking peoples’)

‘People’ derives from the Latin ‘populus’, and basically means a population. 
‘People’ is not and never can be the plural of ‘person’; but it appears to be so when it is used as a collective noun meaning a group or collection of human beings. And to that extent it has taken the function through usage.
‘Person’ derives from the Latin ‘persona’, a mask’; hence a character in a play, and hence an individual human being.

I am somewhat surprised that AE speakers are so resistent to ‘persons’. The meanings and usage of both words are excellently illustrated in two founding documents of the U.S.:

_Declaration of of independence_: ‘When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one *people* to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them....’ [I.e. two connected peoples are severing their connection].

_Constitution, Section 7_: ‘But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the *Persons* voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.’

_Constitution, Amendment 4_, says it all: ‘The right of the *people* to be secure in their *persons*, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the *persons* or things to be seized.’

One could argue that what Lincoln should have said at Gettysburg is: ‘that government of the people, by those persons elected by that people, for the totality of the persons comprising that people, shall not perish from the earth’. But that would rather flatten the oratory....


----------



## Loob

dec-sev said:


> The manuals of the English language I have consider “persons” to be a mistake. How did it come about that something considered to be grammatically incorrect can be used in formal settings? [...]Is it the same with “persons”? I mean so many people consider the word to be OK that it should be OK for everybody?


It's an interesting point, dec-sev. But actually, I think your question is the wrong way round: I would see the issue more as "if persons is grammatically correct" (which it definitely is in certain contexts) "why do [?some] grammar manuals consider it to be a mistake?"

I think the answer lies in the discussion earlier in the thread. For most practical purposes, "person" is pluralised as "people"; there are very few situations in which it is pluralised as "persons". So your grammar manuals are giving you a sensible rule of thumb: don't pluralise "person" as "persons". 


> Originally Posted by *winklepicker*
> For practical purposes non-natives should never use _persons_.
> 
> 
> 
> Why only non-natives?
Click to expand...

I think wincklepicker here was giving the same rule of thumb. It could, if you prefer, be expanded to read don't pluralise "person" as "persons" unless you are a lawyer or a writer of signs, or in other exceptional circumstances


----------



## dec-sev

Loob said:


> I think the answer lies in the discussion earlier in the thread. For most practical purposes, "person" is pluralised as "people"; there are very few situations in which it is pluralised as "persons". So your grammar manuals are giving you a sensible rule of thumb: don't pluralise "person" as "persons".


 I’m reading _The Cat’s Cradle_ at the moment. Here are some extracts from the book. 
 
 
_And it was during that time that the First World War came to an end, having killed ten million persons and wounded twenty million, Johnson among them._


_When Lionel Boyd Johnson and Corporal Earl McCabe were washed up naked onto the shore  of San Lorenzo, I read, they were greeted by persons far worse off than they._
_ _
_Fourteen hundred persons are said to have died while building them_.
 
What are practical reasons for using “persons” in these sentences?


----------



## Loob

I don't know, I'm afraid - I haven't read the book. 

An attempt to depersonalise? A Vonnegut quirk?


----------



## Thomas1

Could 'persons' be used here for stylistic purposes? Perhaps the author found that the word 'people' would be too common?

_***

_Does the preference _people _over _persons _hold true also for the plural of _spokesperson_?


----------



## Outsider

It could be argued that "persons" emphasizes individuality, while "people" sounds more collective.


----------



## dec-sev

Loob said:


> An attempt to depersonalise? A Vonnegut quirk?





> It could be argued that "persons" emphasizes individuality, while "people" sounds more collective.


It seems that you natives don't know it for sure if the word depersonalieses people or emphasizes thier indiditualtiy


----------



## Outsider

I am not a native speaker. I would like to hear more about this from the natives.


----------



## Cagey

I tend to agree with Outsider, though that is just a guess without more context to show us Vonnegut's attitude towards these events. 

"Persons" is used in legal documents, and so might be language used to invoke the impersonality of laws.  I think this may be the basis of Loob's suggestion.

"Persons" also refers to people one by one, as opposed to collectively, and so might be used to draw attention to the people as individuals. 

Vonnegut's use is a 'quirk' in the sense that most writers would have used "people" instead, but I would think that he uses it with a considered purpose.  He was careful with language, and concerned by events in the world around him.


----------



## dec-sev

Cagey said:


> "Persons" also refers to people one by one, as opposed to collectively, and so might be used to draw attention to the people as individuals.


 It's clear now. What about "children"? Can I say "I have two childs" to draw attention to them as individuals?


> It is found in formal settings, such as the police statement of "murder by person or persons unknown."


 This is from the previous page. Why is the word used here? Seems to be no need to consider the people who committed the crime one by one.


----------



## Loob

Cagey said:


> "Persons" is used in legal documents, and so might be language used to invoke the impersonality of laws. I think this may be the basis of Loob's suggestion.


Yes, that was very much my thinking: _ten million *people* - warm, living human beings; ten million *persons* - faceless numbers_.  But as I said, I haven't read the book, so this interpretation may be completely wrong


dec-sev said:


> What about "children"? Can I say "I have two childs" to draw attention to them as individuals?


I can only assume you are joking now.


> This is from the previous page. Why is the word used here? Seems to be no need to consider the people who committed the crime one by one.


This is a legal usage.


----------



## Minotaur

My posting with etymology and examples has got somwhat lost as it was the last on the previous page.

It must be understood that these are two completely different words.

A *person* is an individual human being; two *persons* are two individual human beings, who can be further refined as two personae, two personalities, or two personages (if they happen to be grand). ‘*Person*’ and ‘*persons*’ cannot be used collectively or generally to refer to mankind or subgroups of it.

*People* is a more flexible noun, basically meaning a group of human beings. When used with an article, ‘*a people*’ or ‘*the people*’ it refers to a group of human beings with a common characteristic, such as race or language. Thus

‘The population of North America consists of divers *peoples*, some indigenous and some originating from other continents. One of the former, the Pequot, was eliminated by one of the latter.’

‘*People*’ without an article refers to human beings in general: ‘Eating *people* is wrong’.

This meaning extends to small or quantifiable groups: ‘Five *people* attended the meeting.’ ‘Over two thousand *people* attended the demonstration’.

If ‘people’ were indeed the plural of ‘person’, the words should be interchangeable. But they are not: ‘Eating *persons* is wrong’ does not mean the same as ‘Eating *people* is wrong’.

They may appear to be interchangeable when one says ‘Over two thousand *persons* attended the demonstration’. But the use of persons here begs the question as to who they were:

'Many *people* feel strongly about gay rights. Over two thousand such *persons* attended the demonstration on Saturday’.

One final example to tie it up:

The expedition consisted of the following *people*, an explorer, a missionary, and their servant. It proved a failure, as all three *persons* were eaten by cannibals. It will be long before such savages can be convinced that eating *people* is wrong.

When Vonnegut has specified Johnson, he personifies also all the others who were killed with him. Thus *persons* is more appropriate than people. 

“The atomic bomb killed over five hundred thousand *people*’ tells us a fact: that over five hundred thousand human beings died.

‘The atomic bomb killed over five hundred thousand *persons*’ alerts us to the fact that those people were individuals like ourselves. The difference is subtle, but important.

When the notice in the lift says 'Capacity 5 persons', it tells the sixth person to enter it to leave. If it were to say 'Capacity 5 people' it would have to be decided which of those persons should step out.

As I said, these are two very different words.

Goodbye folks, people, persons...


----------



## dec-sev

Loob said:


> Yes, that was very much my thinking: _ten million *people* - warm, living human beings; ten million *persons* - faceless numbers_.  But as I said, I haven't read the book, so this interpretation may be completely wrong





Minotaur said:


> ‘The atomic bomb killed over five hundred thousand *persons*’ alerts us to the fact that those people were individuals like ourselves.


 Both phrases are written by English natives. How could you explain the contradiction, please?



Loob said:


> I can only assume you are joking now.


 When I first came across “persons” in the book I thought that was a so called coined expression. Now I see that “persons” is widely used. I’m not sure how widely if there are people there who strongly recommend not to use it at all unless you’re a lawyer. 



Minotaur said:


> “The atomic bomb killed over five hundred thousand *people*’ tells us a fact: that over five hundred thousand human beings died.
> 
> ‘The atomic bomb killed over five hundred thousand *persons*’ alerts us to the fact that those people were individuals like ourselves. The difference is subtle, but important.



Thanks for the explanation. I see you point. But it looks like playing with the language. Someone said that a death of one person is a tragedy, thousand dead is statistics. But strictly speaking both phrases are about five hundred thousand dead people, and trying to make a difference reeks of hypocrisy. Still if what you’re saying is true, I won’t be surprised to know that using “people” in the examples like you gave will soon be considered to be politically incorrect 



Minotaur said:


> ‘The atomic bomb killed over five hundred thousand *persons*’ alerts us to the fact that those people were individuals like ourselves. The difference is subtle, but important.


 
A flaw in you example. How can you speak about individuals if you don’t know the exact number of the people dead? 

I’m not in the position to judge your native language. Just my thoughts. 

I’ve already said that according to the manuals I have “persons” is a mistake. Why? They are for intermediate and advanced students after all.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

It's a simple fact that 'persons' is hardly ever used in normal everyday speech or writing. That's what your book is attempting to indicate, I imagine.

I'd say its misuse is one of the most common mistakes made by learners. That's probably why the book calls it a 'mistake'. They want to stop its widespread misuse nip it in the bud from Lesson One.

 I'd say you are well beyond "advanced" learner level. There comes a point when, to go forward, one has to 'unlearn'. This is stuff you can't get from grammars and dictionaries. You'll notice that native speakers don't always agree, or have different opinions about these finer points.

'People' is an essential word, one of the first that has to be learnt. Learners 'import'  all the baggage of their mother tongue to the new language, especially if it is the first foreign language they are learning. Experienced language learners realise that what is different about languages is as important as the similarities, probably more important.

As for the literary use of 'persons', the use of 'persons' instead of 'people' emphasises that each of the dead was an individual person. They were of course as a group 'people', human beings.

We got a note this morning from a neighbour about a constant whining noise coming from our entryphone. It said " It appears that a person or " persons" (?????) have been ... [using the entryphone incorrectly]" 
We had a good laugh about 'persons ( ????)' - was it perhaps the squirrels ( not 'people'). He was writing as if it was a police report. Are we to think that there is a gang of criminals deliberately sabotaging our entryphone.  Maybe he was being funny of course. The better word would have been 'somebody', an unknown individual.

In a similar way, it's possible that the author chose 'persons' because it is used in police reports. Police reports are notorious for their mangling of English. The police never 'go in' or 'go out': they 'enter' and 'exit'. They never 'walk along' a street: they 'proceed along' They don't deal with people: they deal with 'persons'
'Individual' is itself a word with several uses.


Hermie


----------



## Outsider

Minotaur said:


> It must be understood that these are two completely different words.


Etymologically, that does appear to be the case:



> person
> early 13c., from O.Fr. _persone_ "human being" (12c., Fr. _personne_), from L. _persona_ "human being," originally "character in a drama, mask," possibly borrowed from Etruscan _phersu_ "mask." This may be related to Gk. _Persephone_.





> people
> c.1275, "humans, persons in general," from Anglo-Fr. _people_, O.Fr. _peupel_, from L. _populus_ "people," of unknown origin, possibly from Etruscan. Replaced native _folk_.


Interesting!


----------



## dec-sev

Thanks to everybody. Especially to Hermie!


----------



## JamesM

"Persons" is also used in Christian theology to describe the three aspects of the Trinity; "God in three persons" refers to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In this case "God in three people" would not mean the same thing at all.


----------



## mplsray

To me it makes just as much sense to say that _people_ is the usual plural of _person_ as it does to say that _won't_ is the contraction for _will not,_ even if, etymologically, it was originally not the contraction of _will not_ but instead of the regional, although related, _woll not._

It makes as much sense to say that _people_ is the usual plural of _person_ as it is to say that _are_ is the usual second person singular form of the verb _be_--the rarer and older second person singular form being _art_--even if _are_ was at one point a plural verb only and _be_ and _are/art_ have two completely separate etymologies.

In fact, I am rather surprised to find that of the general dictionaries I can find online, only three specifically identify _people_ as a plural of _person_:

From the Encarta World English Dictionary, North American ed.:



> _plural_ peo·ple ... _or_ per·sons (_formal_)




(The ellipsis marks where the pronunciation was given.)

From the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary:



> plural *people* or FORMAL OR LAW *persons*



From the Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English:


> pl. *people* or *persons*



Given that last example, it should not be surprising that the Oxford English Dictionary itself identifies _people_ as a plural of _person._


----------



## mickey0

Hello,
 in an interview (the speaker wasn't a english native) I've heard "I'm a poor people"; does it make any sense?
Moreover: in a previous post somebody wrote "peoples"; is it a mistake or what?
 thanks


----------



## JamesM

No, "I'm a poor people" doesn't make sense.

"Peoples" is a valid word.


----------



## carlosfhernandez

This is an old thread but the topic is something that has never left my thoughts. I've recently come to a simple and personal conclusion on the usage. 


First of all, language evolves; it lives. This is especially true with American English (vs. British English). France, as an example, has a governing body for the maintenance of the French language. In the United States we do not. 


Given that, I've accepted that the common usage has changed over time—something that can be seen throughout the writings of the last 200 years. So, even though persons may sometimes be the correct usage of the plural form of person, it is still acceptable to use people (unless dealing with official documents—more on that later). 


At a basic level I compare the person–people (en-dash used here; another topic of light controversy) usage to individual–group. This is not a direct correlation.


individual–person
individuals–persons
people–group
peoples–groups


Three persons at the corner looked at me. 
Three people at the corner looked at me.
Three individuals at the corner looked at me. 
Three group at the corner looked at me. 


Note: a group is a collection or set (noun) and not a plural noun. It is a number of persons related in the same way. 


People may be used to designate indefinite persons or a number of individuals that form a group (1). Typically this should be used when the exact number is not known or not relevant (2). The word can be used to distinguish the persons from other animals (3). It can also be used to associate a set of traits (4) or designate the individuals to a common community, company, or other specific grouping (5). They can define a collection that corresponds to nationality, ethnicity, location, religion, or historical grouping (6). It is typically not used in official, formal, legal, and government documents (7). Finally, it is used (most current usage) when referring to numerable individuals excepting small numbers (8). 


(1) The people in the room looked at me. How many people glared at me? Three persons rode the train. Two persons threw paper airplanes at me.
(2) The people eating burgers didn't like that I ate salad. 
(3) Seven people and three dogs were at the park.
(4) People with large noses can hear better. I know why nosy people always eavesdrop. 
(5) We played soccer with the people from Microsoft. 
(6) The people of Texas eat sushi. The Chicano people don't speak Spanish. People of the 1920s didn't know how to dance.
(8) Eighty people decided not to drink Redbull. I saw three persons playing with fire. 


Persons defines number within a group. It is used when the number is relevant or exact. It will not be used when the number is large even though it may be exact, unless it is important enough to define. This is typically a judgement call that is acceptable either way.  It is used in official, formal, legal, and government documents.


Peoples is the plural of people, typically referring the usage of the word people as shown in numbers four through six, above. 




And of course (oh no! I started with "and"), most of these rules will not be used since:
  writing in a way that is clear for the reader is more important, thus avoiding formal—and possibly confusing—grammar and style;
  it is important to be consistent in usage, and a writer will typically use people in it's common usage at one point;
  the language has evolved where it is acceptable to use people in place of persons.

Finally, this particular topic—the usage of persons vs. people—is really up for debate and in a transitional state. Most people don't care. Opinions vary widely even between official sources of the English language. 


This is all just my opinion. I am a software architect, designer, and UI Evangelist. I haven't studied grammar since, well, grammar school. 




Cheers.


----------

