# The police are coming. / The police is coming.



## Resa Reader

The police *are *coming. / The police 'is' coming.

I know that you've had the topic over and over again in various threads. (I have read them all. ☺)

Up to now I have always regarded the plural as the only correct version. Now I have been told that there is a tendency in American English to also accept the singular here. (also with a word like "cattle").

Can you comment on this? Should I have second thoughts?


----------



## sdgraham

If you're talking about law enforcement, we say "the police are ..."



> Now I have been told that there is a tendency in American English to also accept the singular here. (also with a word like "cattle").



Who told you that? 

We have many uneducated and under-educated speakers who can't conjugate verbs, but "accept?" No. 

The barbarians have not yet breached the gates.

(Speaking as one who actually has cattle in a pasture from time to time)


----------



## PaulQ

As you will have seen, AE and BE differ in some respects:

The staff are/is unhappy - The government is/are doing nothing - the population is/are revolting, etc.  - depending upon whether the noun is viewed as a single whole or a composition of individuals.

This does not happen with "police" which is always plural.


----------



## lucas-sp

"The police" is not _always_ plural. If it names the _institution_ of the police, as a governmental body or as a concept in political theory, then it is singular.

But when you say "The police are coming!" you almost always mean "various policemen." Hence the plural verb.


----------



## gramman

This post from an earlier WRF thread makes this same point, and contains and links to more elaboration.


----------



## Resa Reader

Thanks for your answers.


----------



## Resa Reader

gramman said:


> This post from an earlier WRF thread makes this same point, and contains and links to more elaboration.



I've read the old thread. As it does not discuss "police" or "cattle" it does not really help me.


----------



## Parla

In my brand of English, _police _and _cattle_ are always plural. I would assume a lack of education if someone claiming to speak English said "the police is" or "the cattle was".


----------



## Hau Ruck

Parla said:


> In my brand of English, _police _and _cattle_ are always plural. I would assume a lack of education if someone claiming to speak English said "the police is" or "the cattle was".


----------



## lucas-sp

Even in a sentence like "In the late 19th century, the Parisian police was managed by scientifically-minded Prefects who increasingly integrated new technologies into all of its major functions"?

In contexts where you can talk about "a police," I think it can be grammatically and conceptually singular.


----------



## PaulQ

PaulQ said:


> This does not happen with "police" which is always plural.





Resa Reader said:


> I've read the old thread. As it does not discuss "police" or "cattle" it does not really help me.


----------



## pob14

lucas-sp said:


> Even in a sentence like "In the late 19th century, the Parisian police was managed by scientifically-minded Prefects who increasingly integrated new technologies into all of its major functions"?
> 
> In contexts where you can talk about "a police," I think it can be grammatically and conceptually singular.


 I would say, “the Parisian police *department* was . . . .”


----------



## gramman

Some references I found talk about _collective_ nouns (e.g., staff, government), which can take both plural and singular verbs depending upon context, and _aggregate_ nouns, which can take only plural verbs. Oxford (Matching verbs to collective nouns) doesn't seem to discuss _aggregate_ nouns, but says _police_ always takes a plural noun.

And that last sentence points to an exception for the _word_ police, e.g., Police is a six-letter word.


----------



## Parla

> In contexts where you can talk about "a police," I think it can be grammatically and conceptually singular.


I don't know of any such context(s). Certainly the word can be used as an adjective before a singular noun (a police officer, the police department, a police car), and would then take a singular verb—but that's not the subject here.


----------



## gramman

I found some mention of it taking singular verbs in BrE, but nothing definitive.


----------



## Loob

To quote myself from an earlier thread ():





Loob said:


> sendintheclowns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hm, now I'm not so sure anymore that  "police is" is technically correct... (even if it should be  ) It is very commonly used, though -- perhaps more so in British English?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think "the police is" _is_ commonly used, either in BrE or in AmE. "The police" is always plural, to my mind: see also the definition in the WR English dictionary:*police*/pəˈliːs/﻿
> ▶noun [treated as _pl._] ​The only time I might expect a singular verb is when "police" is  part of a name and shorthand for a particular police force - as in the  sentence I quoted in one of the previous threads on this subject: "The Metropolitan police is London's biggest employer".
Click to expand...


(We had a different WR English dictionary at that time, of course.)


----------



## GamBIT_Rus

If a police car's stopped and there's only ONE policeman in it, so how will You call the situation? "the police are" in the car (but there's only one!) or "the police is" in the car?
If (perhaps) the cop/cops is/are behind the door and You aren't exactly sure in the number - maybe one or not - "the police are" behind or "the police is" behind? It's not easy...

Yes, I know the dictionary position. "The police noun is a plural" (Or the police are plural? ))
But it seems to me that originally folks did understand a difference between police and policemen, and now that words are incorrectly gathered into one meaning.
The Police in the majority of languages does mean an organisation and nothing else. It is the initial meaning. Not a crowd of policemen at you door. Asking help You find it from the organisation, not the person.
The police as a public institute is a common meaning. Yes, some people are working in, but fortunately there's a word "policemen' describing them. There's no need to double it with the "police" at the same meaning.
So, LOGICALLY, it would be correct to say:
the police is
the policeman is
the policemen are

BUT... there were a lot of people that didn't know anything about the logic and they simply reduced the word "policemen" to "police", not thinking of what to do with the police as the organisation. "We may use 2 words instead!"
"Police office"?  - But if we talk not about the office-place?..
"Police force"? - But in the police there are a lot of non-forced jobs...
Police as an organisation?.. mmmm.... Let's speak Scotland Yard!
That's why people have invented Esperanto ))


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

GamBIT_Rus said:


> If a police car's stopped and there's only ONE policeman in it, so how will You call the situation? "the police are" in the car (but there's only one!) or "the police is" in the car?
> If (perhaps) the cop/cops is/are behind the door and You aren't exactly sure in the number - maybe one or not - "the police are" behind or "the police is" behind? It's not easy...


It's very easy.

There is a police officer in the car.
There is a policeman in the car.
There is a cop in the car.
I think there may be police behind the door.





> But it seems to me that originally folks did understand a difference between police and policemen, and now that words are incorrectly gathered into one meaning.


It doesn't seem like that at all to me.  I have been a police officer for more than thirty years, and I have never heard a native speaker over the age of five refer to me as "a police."



> So, LOGICALLY, it would be correct to say:
> the police is


No.  "The police" does not refer to an individual police officer, and never has.




> BUT... there were a lot of people that didn't know anything about the logic and they simply reduced the word "policemen" to "police", not thinking of what to do with the police as the organization.


You are mistaken about the etymology and the usage (both present and historical) of the word "police" in English.


----------



## GamBIT_Rus

No, no. Say it using only the "police" word. Try. And You'll know why the police must be only a single noun.

No one uses this word for only one man in the other languages. They speak like "policeman". For the group of policemen they use the "policemen" word too. With the plural form too.
BUT, having to use the "police" form they use only the single form because they mean an attachment to the police, not trying to duplicate the other word "policemen".
So they would say "the policemen are" or "the police is" but never "the police are" for only one reason - it is an organisation. And they do not think of the number of the policemen. Maybe one, maybe five... Who knows?
Yes they may use the police word as a replacement of the policemen word if they don't want to point the numbers or some other reason, but it would be used in the singular form. Because this is an organisation, not the plural form of the policeman word.
By the way You'll never say "the army are coming" although similarly would . It looks identical.
The modern use of the police word is an exclusion initially based on the traditional mistake. A people treat this word like "They" but logically it's "It" (organisation). Policeman - "He". Policemen - "They".
Why it's not good? Because speaking about the police organisation they can't simply use the police word, they have to use the additional determinations. "A police organisation", "a police forces" and so on. Because they've already used the word for the meaning that the "policemen" word had.
Whey can't even use this word for the police organisations of the different countries. Whey can't say simply "policies" for the organisations. But there's no problem to say "armies" for them. They do not say "the army organisation" because they have not used a word army for the plural form of a soldier - they do know the perfect word "soldiers".
However the modern use for ex. "the team are..." points that the problem is much deeper inside the people's mind. A plural form of a police was an exclusion, but now becomes a usual way for the plural form at all. If I can do it with the "police" - why I can't do it with the other words?..
Why <something> we call an exclusion? Because <something> is so and it's so and don't ask why. Because.
I think I'll meet soon <something> like "the basketball are running". Why to speak such a long way - basketball players or basketballists - let's cut it. The army are, the group are, the crew are, the team are, the government are - perfect!
The minus is only one - a language becomes a set of the exclusions.


< Post edited to write out word in full.  Cagey, moderator >


----------



## Andygc

The use of words in other languages is completely irrelevant. In English we do not say "the police is". If a solitary police officer comes to my house in response to my calling for assistance I can turn to my wife and say "The police are here". I could also say "A policeman is here". We don't have "polices" - "police" is uncountable - we have "police forces".


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Unfortunately your notions have little bearing on the realities of standard usage which often has little to do with logic. There's no such word as 'a police' meaning a single police officer, or the police which is the word I'd use in formal circumstances: I'd say 'the police' are here even if there was only one officer. Otherwise I use 'cop/s', casually, or 'the police' with a plural verb and pronoun 'they'.
For words like team, parliament, Scotland Yard, the Metropolitan Police and so on, BrE is more relaxed than AmE  about plural or singular verb forms depending on how we view the 'group' in any particular context, as an entity or a crowd of individuals.

('smth' isn't an English word. It's an abbreviation used by dictionaries.)


----------



## heypresto

GamBIT_Rus said:


> No, no. Say it using only the "police" word. Try. And You'll know why the police must be only a single noun.


I've just said it - twenty times - and it's a plural every time.



GamBIT_Rus said:


> No one uses this word for only one man in the other languages.


And neither do they use it for one man in English.



GamBIT_Rus said:


> They speak like "policeman". For the group of policemen they use the "policemen" word too.


As we do in English.


----------



## Ander111

I think capitalization is the key here.

When _police _is capitalized, it refers to a specific agency. It's singular because agencies are singular, and it's usually followed by _Department:

The Los Angeles Police Department *has* received a bigger budget._

When it's not capped, it refers to multiple police officers, who may or may not all be members of the same agency.

_Los Angeles police *have* received raises.

Police from many countries *are* here for the convention.
_


----------



## Linkway

The .... department has announced pay rises for all employees.

It's "has" because "department" is singular; it's nothing to do with whether "police" is singular or plural.


----------



## cando

Languages are not designed by computer coders. They are more subtle and flexible and expressive than that. Languages emerge and evolve from particular cultures, and are shaped by the way those peoples look at the world and think about things. English has a grammatical form which has been analysed as a “collective plural”. It is certainly not a mistake, but a usage that reflects the fact that English people often think of organisations not as abstract entities but human collectives composed of multiple individuals. It can be confusing for non-native speakers to learn, and it may not be used wholly consistently across all variants of the language, but it is a natural and normal part of English usage. I would happily say “The army are coming”, for example. “The cavalry are coming” is a well known cliché’ from American Western movies. You have to accept languages for how they actually function and try to enter into their way of thinking. That’s the only way to speak more like a native.

P.S. It can also be an illuminating exercise as you learn to see the world from subtly different points of view.


----------



## GamBIT_Rus

OK.
Then explain the following - there's a similar term, "militia". And it's a singular noun, like it has to be with the rules.
"The race militia has got itchy fingers"
That's the difference? Really? Do you really think that a police and a militia are the different terms?
And no one has still explained why we cant say an "army" word like a common plural. If a police is not the exception of the rules - we must speak an army at the same way.

IMHO it's obvious that replacing a "policemen" word with a "police" was initially wrong. This usage can't be explained logically, it's ONLY a tradition.
This was a foreign term meaning an organisation. Its absolutely true.
If someone is in doubt - "*Police* are organizations established to maintain law and order." (English Wikipedia)
"For officers of such organizations, see Police officer" - it means that the terms are not the same. There are the police officers and the police, separately. And a police is an organisation, even you used to think differ.
And YES, you CAN call an organisation like you do this the government (or "the government are coming" too?) 

The replacement was unnecessary, made by people who do not know both logic and the word's origin. It was originally a Greek word and does mean AN ORGANISATION. Period. 
And that's why British people had to invent a "police force" - exactly because they have falsely replaced a term 'policemen"
The languages that haven't such a logical problem simply use the original term equal to "police" for the meaning that English now calls "police forces" or "police department" or "police structure" or "police office" etc.


----------



## Andygc

GamBIT_Rus said:


> IMHO it's obvious that replacing a "policemen" word with a "police" was initially wrong.


Since nobody has done so it's hard to see what you find wrong.



GamBIT_Rus said:


> Then explain the following - there's a similar term, "militia".


There is absolutely nothing to explain - the words "militia" and "army" have nothing to do with the use of the word "police". For a start, both are countable and have plural forms. Also, quoting Wikipedia to make your point was ill-advised - your ungrammatical quotation ("Police are organizations ...") no longer appears at the link you provided.

As I said before, the use of equivalent words in other languages is completely irrelevant to the use of "police" in English. The etymology is also irrelevant. The word "police" means an organization responsible for law and order. The organization employs "policemen" and "policewomen", alternatively called "police officers". The word "police" is uncountable - it has no plural form, but has a plural sense and takes a plural verb. If we wish to refer to the police in a countable way we speak of "police forces" where "police" is used as an adjective. What don't you understand about that?



GamBIT_Rus said:


> And that's why British people had to invent a "police force"


Henry Fielding introduced the Bow Street Runners to deal with crime, not as a linguistic exercise.


----------



## JulianStuart

GamBIT_Rus said:


> And no one has still explained why we cant say an "army" word like a common plural. If a police is not the exception of the rules - we must speak an army at the same way.
> .


One army, two armies  The two armies clashed on Bosworth Field.
The police. A police  Two polices


----------



## GamBIT_Rus

"Also, quoting Wikipedia to make your point was ill-advised - your ungrammatical quotation ("Police are organizations ...") no longer appears at the link you provided."
Really? LOL.
Get it -  Police (disambiguation) - Wikipedia
Just before calling somebody "ill" better check the facts.
The fact that the police (organisation) IS in all countries but all the non-English native students are very surprised with the plural verbs near the word "police", could point you that maybe there's something wrong with the logic.
Talking about one policeman with "are" verb ("the police are here") sounds very funny. Even if you may want to express your respect, as "you are", but I don't think so.


----------



## JulianStuart

GamBIT_Rus said:


> "
> The fact that the police (organisation) IS in all countries but all the non-English native students are very surprised with the plural verbs near the word "police", could point you that *maybe there's something wrong with the logic*.
> Talking about one policeman with "are" verb ("the police are here") sounds very funny. Even if you may want to express your respect, as "you are", but I don't think so.


It's not uncommon for non-native speakers to come and tell us that the "logic" is wrong and therefore we don't know how to speak our language (the way other "logical' languages do).  It's not going to change how English is spoken.


----------



## GamBIT_Rus

JulianStuart said:


> One army, two armies  The two armies clashed on Bosworth Field.
> The police. A police  Two polices


You do not have "polices" same as you do not have "policemens". A double plural is incorrect.

It's just because somebody somewhere has decided  that speaking "policemen" is a bore, and why not to cut it to simply "police"? police=policemen.
Since the noun is engaged it has become impossible to say about the organisation by simply using a word "police". So there have appeared such a very strange construction as "police organisation" etc. "organisation Organisation"
You were made to use an adjective because have used a noun for doubling another word "policemen". It's obvious. If an English language would have no such word as "policemen" - it would be understandable. Since it has - this is only a tradition.

Any official exclusion in the language's rules is a result of a mistake being a tradition.


----------



## GamBIT_Rus

JulianStuart said:


> It's not uncommon for non-native speakers to come and tell us that the "logic" is wrong and therefore we don't know how to speak our language (the way other "logical' languages do).  It's not going to change how English is spoken.


Come on...  I've heard a discussion about this matter with English-native speaker and he was wondering of the plural verb forms related with this word. So there's no the only understanding even inside the UK.
All the languages are advancing and who knows, maybe sometimes it would be changed as in the other world.


----------



## JulianStuart

GamBIT_Rus said:


> It's just because somebody somewhere has decided  that speaking "policemen" is a bore, and why not to cut it to simply "police"? police=policemen.


The English language does not operate on the process that "someone somewhere decides something". If you have difficulty getting your mind around the idea of_ the same word being used differently in different situations_ : the concept of "the police" is different from an individual in the police force being called "a policeman/woman/officer/sergeant/inspector/constable etc" and not "a police", you will continue to be confused by how English _does_ work  The difference between noun and adjective, as noted above, is critical here.

Edit:  Your logic, if I understand correctly, suggests
"We should call soldiers "armies" because they are in the army."
"We should call members "polices" because they are in the police."

This thread goes over some of the issues of collective nouns and the use of singular or plural verbs in English, and it is different in BE and E: Collective nouns: Family: single or plural?


----------



## GamBIT_Rus

JulianStuart said:


> The English language does not operate on the process that "someone somewhere decides something". If you have difficulty getting your mind around the idea of_ the same word being used differently in different situations_ : the concept of "the police" is different from an individual in the police force being called "a policeman/woman/officer/sergeant/inspector/constable etc" and not "a police", you will continue to be confused by how English _does_ work  The difference between noun and adjcetive, as noted above, is critical here.


If you say that a word "police" has no an "a" article form (it's true) and this is normal then please tell me - how many English nouns do not have "a"? And what is it - exceptions or not? 

I think the good idea would be if an English language had the over word meaning the police organisation by one word, just like "policy". But "policy" is engaged with the meaning of politics (replacement too?).
If "a police" form would exist then where would be no an understanding problem. It seems to me that when this word was incorporated in English, a people simply had not understood that it is an organisation itself. They've thought that "police" ARE some men. It's funny.


----------



## JulianStuart

GamBIT_Rus said:


> If you say that a word "police" has no an "a" article form (it's true) and this is normal then please tell me - how many English nouns do not have "a"? And what is it - exceptions or not?
> 
> I think the good idea would be if an English language had the over word meaning the police organisation by one word, just like "policy". But "policy" is engaged with the meaning of politics (replacement too?).
> If "a police" form would exist then where would be no an understanding problem. It seems to me that when this word was incorporated in English, a people simply had not understood that it is an organisation itself. They've thought that "police" ARE some men. It's funny.


Yeah, languages are funny sometimes* and you'll just have to get used to English! No amount of complaining or "logic" will change it!  (And we haven't even touched on spelling - even some English speakers want to reform that!)
*Like a language with no articles is funny


----------



## GamBIT_Rus

Collecting a mind I think I've understood the roots of a problem.
Yes, the English language simply has no such a word describing a police institute by ONE word.
It's only a structure of adjective+noun. It's sad... Honestly I've always thought that "police" means the same with the other world meaning.

Let's take the roman languages (where the word was taken by English from).
They have accepted a "police" word from the Greeks and they do have such a wonderful word like "policia". In English transcription it would look like "politia".
English language has a "militia" but has not a "politia"! And that's all. Saying "call the police" they think of it like a group of the men - that's why they treat the term like a plural. Initially "policia" is not a plural noun, it is a single because it is an organisation. But the English language has not such an analogue.


----------



## velisarius

This source sees a change towards the acceptance of a singular verb with "police" in BE.



> ...many people in today’s media (from my local radio station to the hallowed BBC) seem to be using _police_ with singular verbs such as _is_, _was_, and _has_ – it’s one of the solecisms [...] that’s guaranteed to bring on an attack of ‘pedantic lexicographeritis’ whenever I hear it. [...]
> 
> Returning to the _police_ example at the start of this piece, Oxford’s two-billion word database of 21st century English, the Oxford English Corpus, contains a fair proportion of examples of _police_ being used with a singular verb in reputable sources such as the _Daily Telegraph_, the _Guardian_, and the _Boston Globe_. *It seems that a sea change may be under way*. Although still considered ungrammatical according to standard British and American usage, are we seeing the gradual process in which _police _falls into line with other collective nouns and it becomes acceptable to use it with a singular verb?
> 
> How to use collective nouns | OxfordWords blog


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

GamBIT_Rus said:


> They have accepted a "police" word from the Greeks . . . But the English language has not such an analogue.


No, English is not Greek.  You have already been told that the usages of other languages are irrelevant when speaking of English.  You seem reluctant to accept this point, but I will repeat it anyway: it is irrelevant when speaking of English usage to say what another language does or does not do in a similar instance. It would be much like asking why Russian does not have or use a definite article, when so many other languages have one.  The answer is "because Rusian is Russian, and not another language" -- and the same is true of English.


----------



## JulianStuart

It seems you are close to resolving your confusion  The only way "sad" comes into it is in your perception of how English "ought" to be based on some expectations based on other languages.  

Policia is not an English word but the word "police" seems to me to be a "word describing a police institute by ONE word' (with the necessary article when needed) if by "institute" you mean "institution".

police - WordReference.com Dictionary of English


> an organized, nonmilitary force for maintaining order, preventing and detecting crime, and enforcing the laws:_Contact the police if such crimes occur._


----------



## Andygc

GamBIT_Rus said:


> Really? LOL.
> Get it


Your link *Police* links to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police]. The text "Police are organizations established to maintain law and order." does not appear on that page. You have now provided a link to a different page where that rather odd text appears - it is very strange to use "police" as a plural word and to me it is wrong. If you use text elsewhere on the internet as part of the discussion, please have the courtesy to provide a link to the text you are quoting.



GamBIT_Rus said:


> Talking about one policeman with "are" verb ("the police are here") sounds very funny.


You don't get it, do you? "The police are here" means that the police force is represented on my doorstep. It does not mean a single police officer is here on my doorstep. He or she represents the force and his or her presence can be described either way - "The police are here" or "A policeman is here". Just as somebody might say "The Army's here" when a single soldier walks into a pub.


----------



## GamBIT_Rus

JulianStuart said:


> It seems you are close to resolving your confusion  The only way "sad" comes into it is in your perception of how English "ought" to be based on some expectations based on other languages.
> 
> Policia is not an English word but the word "police" seems to me to be a "word describing a police institute by ONE word' (with the necessary article when needed) if by "institute" you mean "institution".
> 
> police - WordReference.com Dictionary of English


Both 'policia/politia' and 'police' are not the native-English words. It was taken outside.

But now I think that the English modern word 'police' initially was accepted not as a noun (else there would exist a single form) but as a kind of an 'adjective in plural' (if it can be said so)
Think of it like:
'The police are here' -> 'The police [officers] are here' - a police word (here) is an adjective used only for a group. If there was only one man - it's worth to say 'The policeman is here'.
So, 'the police' are 'the police men' indeed, where the word 'men' is closed. It is an adjective that became a noun. Wow.
And that's why 'police' has no 'a police' form in English - the adjectives do not have an article! 
The police noun is a derivative of a collective adjective, and is NOT a 100% analogue of Greeks politia (or policia) because that are real nouns that have a standard singular form.
I think it would be great if a process of plagiarism continued with the real noun describing an institution with one word like it takes place in the vest majority of languages.

Thanks a lot to everybody!






Andygc said:


> Your link *Police* links to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police]. The text "Police are organizations established to maintain law and order." does not appear on that page. You have now provided a link to a different page where that rather odd text appears - it is very strange to use "police" as a plural word and to me it is wrong. If you use text elsewhere on the internet as part of the discussion, please have the courtesy to provide a link to the text you are quoting.
> 
> You don't get it, do you? "The police are here" means that the police force is represented on my doorstep. It does not mean a single police officer is here on my doorstep. He or she represents the force and his or her presence can be described either way - "The police are here" or "A policeman is here". Just as somebody might say "The Army's here" when a single soldier walks into a pub.


I think it is You do not understand what I'm talking about. Can you say 'The army are here' (not armies) instead of 'the army is here'? I guess no.
Why? look just up. (disclosure - army is a real noun while police is not)


----------



## PaulQ

GamBIT_Rus,

Your speculation, devoid of research, is filled with errors - you have therefore arrived at several inconsistent solutions to what you, personally, see as a problem, but which nobody in the English-speaking world sees in the same way.

You have a further problem - the English language has no governing body. There is nobody to say if something is right or wrong - everything is done by general agreement. This means that no matter how much you shout or protest, English will only change if a large majority use the "new" version for a long time - then it is accepted. "Police" is accepted as plural.

From the “Online Etymological Dictionary 





> police (n.)1530s, "the regulation and control of a community," at first essentially the same word as policy (n.1); from Middle French police (late 15c.), from Latin politia "civil administration," from Greek polis "city" (see polis).
> 
> Until mid-19c. used in England for "civil administration;" [the] application to "administration of public order, law-enforcement" (1716) is from French (late 17c.), and originally, in English, referred to France or other foreign nations.
> 
> The first [police] force so-named in England was the Marine Police, set up 1798 to protect merchandise at the Port of London. Meaning "body of officers entrusted with the duty of enforcing laws, detecting crime, etc." is from 1810.


i.e. The “police” enforce “policy”.

You will see the all important words “body of officers” -> which implies a plural – many officers…

The OED demonstrates that the current word “policy” was previously “police”( but pronounce”policy”) and is recorded as such in the 15th century.

The OED gives the obsolete definition of “police” 





> 3.†a. orig. _Sc._ The regulation and control of a community; the maintenance of law and order, provision of public amenities, etc. _Obs._In Great Britain the word first came into official use in Scotland where on 13 Dec. 1714 Queen Anne appointed _Commissioners of Police_, consisting of six noblemen and four gentlemen, for the general internal administration of the country. The word was still viewed with disfavour after 1760. A writer in the _British Mag._, Apr. 1763, p. 542, offers the opinion that ‘from an aversion to the French..and something under the name of _police_ being already established in Scotland, English prejudice will not soon be reconciled to it’. In the 19th cent. the name _Commissioners of Police_ or _Police Commission_ was given to the local bodies having control of the police force in burghs and police burghs in Scotland.


This then gave rise to the current meaning of “police”:





> 5. a. The civil force of a state responsible for maintaining public order and enforcing the law, including preventing and detecting crime; *(with plural concord) *members of a police force, police officers; the local constabulary.


(My emphasis)


----------



## GamBIT_Rus

PaulQ,
thank you for the affirmation of all I've said.


----------



## PaulQ

GamBIT_Rus said:


> thank you for the affirmation of all I've said.


(a) not "all" (b) most of what you said was incorrect.


GamBIT_Rus said:


> It seems to me that when this word was incorporated in English, a people simply had not understood that it is an organisation itself. They've thought that "police" ARE some men.


This is ludicrous.


GamBIT_Rus said:


> Can you say 'The army are here' (not armies) instead of 'the army is here'? I guess no.


This is irrelevant.


GamBIT_Rus said:


> But now I think that the English modern word 'police' initially was accepted not as a noun (else there would exist a single form) but as a kind of an 'adjective in plural'


No. 


GamBIT_Rus said:


> Both 'policia/politia' and 'police' are not the native-English words. It was taken outside.


If you go back far enough, there is no such thing as a "native word".

etc.


----------



## GamBIT_Rus

non-native means non anglo-saxon originality

anyway all you've said still proves my suggestions.
treatin' a word as 'plural adjective' gives all the answers.


----------



## Cagey

This thread is closed.

Our forum discusses English as it is actually used. Discussions of how English should be changed, and whether the patterns of use are logical, are interesting, but belong elsewhere. 

Cagey, moderator


----------

