# people / persons



## charlyboy81

*Moderator note*: multiple threads merged to create this one.  Nous avons fusionné plusieurs fils pour créer celui-ci.


hi peeps',

Could you please make clear when one have to use "people" and "persons"? For instance if i wanna say " 100 personnes ont été interrogées pour cette enquête", lequel devrais je utiliser?

Merci

C.


----------



## williamtmiller

the rule I would stick to with only a few exceptions is 1 person and anything more than that use people. So 100 people were interrogated...If you find that you need to accent the individuality of the process than you can say 100 individuals were interrogated but I would not force the word persons into the sentence.


----------



## ultrasleek

I never know when to use people and when to use persons. Does anyone know the rule?

Cheers!


----------



## Mikie8421

Honestly, I'm not sure on the grammar behind this, but in my opinion 99% of the time you'll use _people_.  _One Person, two people, three people, four people..._


----------



## broglet

ultrasleek said:


> I never know when to use people and when to use persons. Does anyone know the rule?
> 
> Cheers!


There is no rule; you can always use "people", but "persons" is more "technical" .... more likely to be used on a sign in a lift, for example.  So a sign might say "12 persons maximum" whereas a person is more likely to say "this lift takes a maximum of 12 people"


----------



## Marcewa

Hello all,

Is it true that in some cases, we can say "3 persons" and not "3 people" to translate "trois personnes"?

Thanks a lot


----------



## Suehil

Officially, you can, but no-one ever says 'three persons'.  It is one person and two or more people.


----------



## bleufish

If i want to say more than 1 person, should i have to say 2 people not 2 persons???


----------



## Mariculi

That's right, PEOPLE


----------



## Mariculi

And then the verb in plural, not singular: Those people are English.


----------



## rosieg

But it is quite possible to use person in the plural (person*s*) in certain specific contexts! Ususally a precise head count or formal instructions.

Ex: Listing of officially reported missing *persons*. (missing person- qqn qui a disparu sans qu'on sache où ou pourquoi, kidnappé, en fugue, tué etc)

Here it is not "people" because they did not all go missing together. They each have their own individual case.


----------



## vanagreg

Hi,

in French we can say "personnes" for people, so I was wondering whether in English you could also use "persons" instead of people (for example: _today I met three persons_), because I have heard different points of view about it. Some say you can, some told me only if you are illetrate you would say so, some say you can't really use it, so I would like to have your opinions on that. Thanks!


----------



## harrythelm

Fut un temps où l'on disait qu'il fallait mettre "persons" quand il s'agissait d'individus dénombrables, tout comme la distinction que l'on fait en français entre gens et personnes. Actuellement, dans la conversation de tous les jours, on dit "three people." Mais dans un style un peu recherché, dans un contexte un peu officiel, "three persons" passe très bien.


----------



## floise

Vanagreg,

Don't use persons as a general rule to talk about several 'personnes'. Use 'people' instead. It is a common error, that French native speakers make. 

Here is a discussion of this by an expert. I'll give you a few lines of his discussion, then the link so that you can read the whole thing:

* Modern style guides disagree,* being able to quote many examples of the use of _people_ as the plural of _person_ in both situations, for example in sentences like “the plane crash killed 370 people”, and “Many people visit the park every day”. *Though persons survives, it does so largely in formal or legal contexts *(“Killed by person or persons unknown”, “This taxi is licensed to hold four persons”) and often seems awkward and old-fashioned.

From the evidence, it seems that *the trend towards using people instead of persons is accelerating and that it may not be so long before persons vanishes from the language except in certain set phrases.*

source: http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/people.htm

So, _persons _is legal or formal. As a general rule, don't use 'persons' to translate 'personnes' in regular, informal speech.

floise


----------



## RuK

You say PEOPLE. The rule is people. One person - two people.

"Persons" is rarely used, very, very rarely. Basically, as a rough rule, don't bother.


----------



## Jean-Michel Carrère

As a side remark, I would like to add that in some cases, the word corresponding to the French "personnes" is missing in English, e.g. : une équipe de sept personnes, a team of seven.


----------



## Padraig

There is an exception: the Christian idea of God. _One God, three persons._


----------



## wildan1

or for a related adjective - _a three-person compartment_ _(a compartment for three people)_


----------



## mime2

three persons is generally not used, i recommend 3 people


----------



## Keith Bradford

Persons is sometimes used in official documents, regulations etc.  E.g. "This lift may not carry more than six persons".  But it still sounds stiff.  Stay with "people".


----------



## bloomiegirl

"Persons" is also still used in some fixed expressions like  "by persons unknown" and "missing persons [unit, investigation, etc.]"; I'm sure there are more. These uses, at least the ones I just thought of, seem to be related to police concerns.

[...]


----------



## wildan1

_individuals_ is a better term if you want to be specific. _A team of seven individuals_

_persons_ is in most cases very official or bureaucratic-sounding


----------



## phily

I'd like to know if there's any difference (of meaning, usage, style etc) between the two possible plurals of the word "person", i.e "persons" and "people". Could we use indiscriminately those two words? I can't really suggest any context as the latter could precisely be given if the nuance is understood. I felt that if the number of people (persons) was specific (and small), "persons" was preferable, whereas we preferably talked about "people" in general: "I saw two persons in the garden" but "people generally prefer pets to wild animals"; is this nuance valid, and couldn't we also say "I saw two people in the garden"? Finally, I was told (in one of my schools in France) that the word "persons" in the plural was grammatically not correct, and that only "people" was, is that right? Now the word "persons' is mentioned in dictionaries as well as in grammar books", so....


----------



## Novanas

I would definitely *not* say, "I saw two *persons* in the garden."  It would have to be "I saw two people in the garden."

I'm struggling now to think of an example of when we might put "person" in the plural.  I think it's almost always in the singular--unless it's a combined word, e.g., "chairpersons".

Even in the singular, I myself would generally avoid the word, I think.  I wouldn't say, "I saw a person in the garden." Instead, I'd say, "I saw somebody in the garden."

"Person" can also sound unfriendly at times.  If you ask someone, "Who is that person?", it can imply that you don't like the look of them.


----------



## Colmartranslation

Person = singular
People = plural
"Persons" is a legal term, e.g.
personnes physiques = natural persons
personnes morales = legal persons
Chairpersons is also a legal term.

In all other non-legal contexts, the plural of person is people.


----------



## Lacuzon

Bonjour,

I've been told that person was for countable and people for uncountable. Was it wrong?


----------



## Colmartranslation

Lacuzon said:


> Bonjour,
> 
> I've been told that person was for countable and people for uncountable. Was it wrong?


Euh, yes, it was wrong.

I saw three people in the garden, three people were playing football.
People can be silly.


----------



## Novanas

"Person" is countable, and "people" may perhaps be uncountable in most contexts.  E.g., "There were a lot of people at the party."  But you can also say, "There were many people at the party," and "many" is an adjective used with countable nouns.  I think I'd look at "people" as a plural that doesn't have a singular.

(Though "people" certainly does have a countable sense: if you're talking about the German people and the French people, then you're talking about two different peoples.)

But I think that Colmartranslation is on the right track here: there are certain contexts within which we use "person".  I don't think the real question here is whether these nouns are countable or uncountable.  The real question is the context in which we use them.


----------



## Novanas

Colmartranslation said:


> Euh, yes, it was wrong.
> 
> I saw three people in the garden, three people were playing football.
> People can be silly.



This is an odd question, isn't it, Colmar?  You can point at individuals and say, "One person, two persons, three persons. . ."  But you wouldn't say, "One people, two people, three people. . ." while pointing out the individuals one by one.  It's the individuals collectively that we refer to as "three people".  No one individual is a "people". Perhaps "people" is similar to a collective noun like "flock".  It's the individual sheep collectively that make the flock. Or maybe it's simpler to say what I said earlier: "people" (in most cases) is a plural noun without a singular.


----------



## DrD

'Persons' as a plural of person is normally only used in a legal context. No native speaker of English would be likely to use the word 'persons' in conversation in any context. It is definitely not a question of whether or not it is a countable or uncountable noun (it is possible for 'persons' to refer to an unspecified number of people - e.g. 'persons unknown').

The basic answer to your question is that that, unless you are writing a legal document or using a compound noun such as 'chairperson', then the plural of person is always people. I also agree with Seneca - there are few occasions when you would actually use the word person - it's far more common to use somebody or someone.



Seneca the Duck said:


> This is an odd question, isn't it, Colmar?  You can point at individuals and say, "One person, two persons, three persons. . ."  But you wouldn't say, "One people, two people, three people. . ." while pointing out the individuals one by one.  It's the individuals collectively that we refer to as "three people".  No one individual is a "people". Perhaps "people" is similar to a collective noun like "flock".  It's the individual sheep collectively that make the flock. Or maybe it's simpler to say what I said earlier: "people" (in most cases) is a plural noun without a singular.



Seneca, I think Colmar's point was that 'people' is not uncountable, because you can refer to three people. It is also not a collective noun, like flock, for the simple reason that (as you stated) you cannot have 'a' people, but also because three people refers to three individuals (three persons) whereas three flocks would refer to three units, each made up of many sheep.

'People' is a plural noun, of which the singular is 'person'.

'Person' is a singular noun, of which the plural may be either 'persons' or 'people', but is normally 'people' in every day language.


----------



## Colmartranslation

Seneca the Duck said:


> This is an odd question, isn't it, Colmar? You can point at individuals and say, "One person, two persons, three persons. . ." But you wouldn't say, "One people, two people, three people. . ." while pointing out the individuals one by one.


I'd say "One person, two people, three people..." although I see your point Seneca. 
I think "people" meaning "population" has to be considered separately, as a collective noun.


----------



## Novanas

DrD said:


> Seneca, I think Colmar's point was that 'people' is not uncountable, because you can refer to three people. It is also not a collective noun, like flock, for the simple reason that (as you stated) you cannot have 'a' people, but also because three people refers to three individuals (three persons) whereas three flocks would refer to three units, each made up of many sheep.
> 
> 'People' is a plural noun, of which the singular is 'person'.
> 
> 'Person' is a singular noun, of which the plural may be either 'persons' or 'people', but is normally 'people' in every day language.



Yes, but the point I'm making is that "people" is not a countable noun like others.  No one individual is a people, so grammatically, you're not counting people.  You're counting individuals/persons, and when you've got to two, then you can start using the word "people".  So if you say "three people", you're talking about the group.  No one of the three is a "people".

"The police" would be similar.  No one individual officer is "the police".  You can count individual officers, and when you do that, the collectivity is the police. (Although, granted, we can say "He's the police", meaning, "He's a representative of the police.")

But I didn't say "people" is a collective noun.  I said similar to a collective noun in that you have to have more than one individual before you can use the word.

Where "people" is countable grammatically is when you're talking about the populations of different countries.


----------



## dr.nini

Hello,

Would you say "A team of 6 persons" or "A team of 6 people"? (are they both accepted or is one grammatically wrong/weird? - i.e., in formal language)

Thanks


----------



## petit1

people in English (GB) and persons in American-English


----------



## SwissPete

A six-people team / a six-person team.


----------



## Kelly B

I'd use _a six-person team _in a sentence discussing what they're doing, but even in American English I'd use _a team of six people _if I were just describing them.
And this sort of answer is why I'm so fond of context.


----------



## Jean-Michel Carrère

Wouldn't "a team of six" (without any word after the number) be the most natural way of putting it in English, anyway?


----------



## bagatelle2

peut on dire 2 persons ou doit on 2 obligtirement 2 people?
Merci


----------



## Martyn94

"obligatoirement" is a strong word; but normally it is "people" outside specific formal/legal contexts. The compulsory warning sign in a lift, for example, would say "Maximum capacity: 12 persons". But if you were talking about it, you would say "this lift only takes twelve people"


----------



## djweaverbeaver

Hi,

Both are correct; however, a native speaker would almost always say "One person, two people, three people, etc."  I've always found this to be one of the biggest giveaways that a person is not a native speaker, especially when their English is flawless in all other aspects.   Using a _*number + persons*_ (ie. *two persons*) sounds like very technical or legal language.  No one would ever utter this in normal speech or even write it in most texts.

Of course, adjectives are invariable in English, so while one would say "A card game for two people", the correct adjective phrase equivalent would be "A two-person card game".


----------



## bagatelle2

Thanks for your help


----------

