# people is/ are ??



## eeleenaa

I'm not sure how you write the verb to be with thw word people. Is it singular or plural?
Please, ask me soon.

Thank you


----------



## kitenok

Hi eeleenaa, and welcome to the forum!
The word _people_ is a plural noun and takes plural verb forms (People _are _strange...).

_Edit, 24 hours later: As soon as I posted this, I was afraid of the discussion that would eventually follow..._


----------



## SwissPete

Welcome to the forum, eeleenaa.



> Please, *ask* answer me soon


 
You are asking, we are answering...


----------



## Loob

Yes, _people_ is usually plural.

It's easiest to think of it as the plural of "person": _one person, two people._


----------



## eeleenaa

OK, thank you very much everybody.
So when I say people, is like plural.
thanks


----------



## Nunty

I'm sorry, but it is not so straight-forward as that.

When you say _people_ meaning more than one person, it takes the plural: *One person is sitting on this bench, but two people are sitting on that one.*

However, _people_ can also mean a racial or cultural group. Then it is singular. *The American people has chosen a new president.*


----------



## Basil Ganglia

Nun-Translator said:


> However, _people_ can also mean a racial or cultural group. Then it is singular. *The American people *has* have chosen a new president.*


In my NA English dialect that is not correct.  Even when referring to an entire group ''people'' is still a plural noun. (I remember being graded on that in grade school English class.)


----------



## Nunty

Really? How interesting. I'm off to explore old threads on the subject.


----------



## mylam

Here's an example of _people_ as a singular noun:

The Navajo people is known for its beautiful rugs and sand art.

For the previous example, we're still talking about lots of individuals who have chosen their president. I'm not sure exactly how to explain the difference...


----------



## JamesM

I would say, "The Navajo people _are _known for their beautiful rugs and sand art."  I don't think "is" is correct here at all.


----------



## Basil Ganglia

JamesM said:


> I would say, "The Navajo people _are _known for their beautiful rugs and sand art."  I don't think "is" is correct here at all.


I fully agree.  Even in this context ''people'' is plural.  _''The Navajo people *are*_ known for ...''


----------



## natkretep

Yes, I'm uncomfortable with _people is ... _as well - and I think it is for this reason you encounter the term _people group_, as in the website http://www.peoplegroups.org/


----------



## JamesM

Can you provide any examples of "people is" in literature or reputable journalism?  To me it's simply a mistake that sounds as odd as "They is hungry."  Perhaps it's regional, but I've never encountered it before except in dialect.


----------



## Nunty

Okay, I want to be clear on this. Are you folks saying that even when using _people_ as a singular noun, you use a plural verb form?


----------



## mylam

Well, I was comfortable until everybody started objecting!   I am perfectly comfortable with the plural usage, even in my example. So perhaps the singular usage is now antiquated. The King James Bible has several examples of the singular usage ("the people is greater and taller than we", "the people is hungry", "my people is risen up as an enemy", etc.)


----------



## JamesM

Nun-Translator said:


> Okay, I want to be clear on this. Are you folks saying that even when using _people_ as a singular noun, you use a plural verb form?


 
I cannot think of an example of "people" as a singular noun. Do you mean something like "The American people"? That, to me, is a collective group and is treated as a plural in all cases.


----------



## Basil Ganglia

Nun-Translator said:


> Okay, I want to be clear on this. Are you folks saying that even when using _people_ as a singular noun, you use a plural verb form?


I don't think people is ever a singular noun.  It's always plural.  

The only possible exception might be in the expression ''one people'', and I'm struggling to identify a situation in which ''one people'' would be the subject in a sentence or clause. In every example I can conjure, ''one people'' is an object or a predicate noun, but never a subject.


----------



## Nunty

Well, how about "indigenous peoples"? That is the example I was thinking of. Here is an example of the usage from the World Bank and here is one from the International Labour Organization (ILO).


----------



## lensuniverse

How about this:

The American citizenry, as a collection of people, is highly varied and contains many cultural roots.

It may be slightly cumbersome to the ear but it seems correct to me. 

NOTE: True the actual subject is citizenry. Though people implies plurality the implication that the citizenry is a [group of people] (singular in nature) seems a fair use of the term.

Anyway the thread got me thinking. As a very new member I would like to say this site is impressive and I am not sure how lovers of language can do without it. Great job (mala dyetz) to you moderators.


----------



## JamesM

Welcome to the forum, lensuniverse!  I would have to think about "citizenry".  At first glance it does seem to work, although I can find many examples of "the citizenry are...".

"The American people is highly varied..." definitely would not work, in my opinion. I am trying to find something other than my opinion to substantiate this.


----------



## Nunty

"As a people, Americans tend to prefer thus-and-such over this-and-that".

_People_ is a legitimate singular form there, isn't it?


----------



## mylam

Did you see my post #15? It got there just as you were posting, JamesM.


----------



## Basil Ganglia

Nun-Translator said:


> Well, how about "indigenous peoples"? That is the example I was thinking of. .


If you try to use ''indigenous people'' as the subject of a verb, the associated verb form will still be plural.  For example, ''the indigenous people of Guatamela seek justice and equity.''  Similarly, ''the indigenous peoples of Central America seek justice and equity.''

In either case a plural verb form is used.


----------



## Nunty

Basil Ganglia said:


> If you try to use ''indigenous people'' as the subject of a verb, the associated verb form will still be plural.  For example, ''the indigenous people of Guatamela seek justice and equity.''  Similarly, ''the indigenous peoples of Central America seek justice and equity.''
> 
> In either case a plural verb form is used.



That is where we disagree. Or at least where I am confused.

Can anyone point to a source? When I get home from the office I'll check my grammars and style books.


----------



## Basil Ganglia

lensuniverse said:


> How about this:
> 
> The American citizenry, as a collection of people, is highly varied and contains many cultural roots.


Citizenry can be singular.  The difference between ''citizenry'' and ''people'' is that ''people'' is the plural form of ''person''.  ''Citizenry'' is not the plural of anything; in fact it can itself form a plural form, ''citizenries''.


----------



## mylam

Basil Ganglia said:


> If you try to use ''indigenous people'' as the subject of a verb, the associated verb form will still be plural. For example, ''the indigenous people of Guat*e*m*a*la seek justice and equity.'' Similarly, ''the indigenous peoples of Central America seek justice and equity.''
> 
> In either case a plural verb form is used.


 
To me, if only one tribe/group exists in Guatemala, then "the indigenous people of Guatemala seeks justice and equity" is perfectly acceptable.


----------



## Nunty

mylam said:


> To me, if only one tribe/group exists in Guatemala, then "the indigenous people of Guatemala seeks justice and equity" is perfectly acceptable.



And if there are several tribes or "people groups" with distinct cultural characteristics? In that case, "the indigenous peoples of Guatemala" is what I would say.


----------



## mylam

Nun-Translator said:


> And if there are several tribes or "people groups" with distinct cultural characteristics? In that case, "the indigenous peoples of Guatemala" is what I would say.


 
Yes, I agree. My point was that if there is only one tribe/group, then the singular verb could be used.


----------



## Nunty

mylam said:


> Yes, I agree. My point was that if there is only one tribe/group, then the singular verb could be used.



Yes, you and I agree. I'm glad of the distinguished company! 

It would be interesting to hear from BE speakers, too.


----------



## Loob

_People_ has two main meanings:

(1) the plural of person
(2) nation.

With meaning (1), it is always plural.

With meaning (2), it can be singular or plural: it can be seen, in the words of the OED, as





> (_a_) A nation, regarded as a unit [...]
> (_b_) With _pl._ concord. A nation, regarded as a collection of individuals.


 
When the meaning is "a nation, regarded as a unit" it can be pluralised to _peoples._

The "nation" meaning is, I'd say, far less common than the "plural of person" meaning; and "nation regarded as a unit" is likewise far less common than "nation regarded as acollection of individuals".

I was trying to keep things simple in my earlier post whan I said "_people_ is usually plural"

PS: I could not say _the indigenous people of Guatemala seek*s* justice and equity_


----------



## mylam

I certainly agree with the "usually plural".


----------



## natkretep

But we have the American playwright Lillian Hellman writing:



> We are *a* people who *do* not want to keep much of the past in our heads. It is considered unhealthy in America to remember mistakes, neurotic to think about them, psychotic to dwell on them



that is, people with a singular indefinite article, but a plural verb form in the relative clause.


----------



## Loob

Hi natkretep

Yes, that fits with OED definition (b)





> (_b_) With _pl._ concord. A nation, regarded as a collection of individuals.


I, personally, would always use the "nation" meaning with plural concord, as Ms Hellman did in your quote.


----------



## JamesM

Basil Ganglia said:


> If you try to use ''indigenous people'' as the subject of a verb, the associated verb form will still be plural. For example, ''the indigenous people of Guatamela seek justice and equity.'' Similarly, ''the indigenous peoples of Central America seek justice and equity.''
> 
> In either case a plural verb form is used.


 
I have the same understanding of it.  It always requires a plural verb form when it is the subject.

Examples:
http://books.google.com/books?id=3U...+American+people+are"+"a+*+people"&lr=&pgis=1
"The American people are a generous people, as evidenced by our generous foreign aid program since World War II: and they are a determined people..."

http://books.google.com/books?um=1&lr=&q="The+Chinese+people+are"+"a+*+people"&sa=N&start=10 
"When a whole people are aroused to arms as they are today..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=FJ...esian+people+are"+date:1970-2008&lr=&as_brr=0
"The Indonesian people are themselves a democratic people by temperament, and only a genuinely democratic interpretation of Islam can succeed there."


----------



## JamesM

mylam said:


> To me, if only one tribe/group exists in Guatemala, then "the indigenous people of Guatemala seeks justice and equity" is perfectly acceptable.


 
Does this mean that "the indigenous people of Guatemala" is functioning as "it" for you in this phrase? To me, it can function only as "they".

I find this very odd to my ear.

"The indigenous people of Guatamala has been oppressed for centuries and it seeks justice and equity" just makes my brain go *tilt*.  It will only handle "The indigenous people of Guatemala have been oppressed... and they seek justice and equity."

If it functions as "it", these should all be fine:

The indigenous people calls itself...
The indigenous people makes its living...
The indigenous people teaches its children...

To me, all of these call for the plural - call themselves, make their living, teach their children.


----------



## Nunty

Of the dictionaries I checked, the _New Webster's_ does not indicate either singular or plural for the entry _people_, and the others (_Random House Compact Unabridged, Pocket Oxford, _and_ Concise Oxford_) all indicate that when used to mean a community or tribe, it is pluralized as _peoples_. 

Since we are concentrating on American English, here is the relevant section from the _Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary_ (Special Second Edition):



> *peo-ple* _n., pl. _*-ples* for 4. [...]
> 4. the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like...


The usage note at the end of this long entry states, in part:



> When *people* means "the entire body of persons who consitute a community, tribe, nation or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, etc." it is used as a singular, with the plural *peoples*: _This people shares characteristics with certain inhabitants of central Asia. The aboriginal peoples of the Western Hemisphere speak many different languages._ The formation of the possessive is regular; the singular is *people's* and the plural is *peoples'*.


Please note the differential use of singular and plural verb forms in "people shares" and "peoples speak" in the sample sentences.


----------



## mylam

JamesM said:


> Does this mean that "the indigenous people of Guatemala" is functioning as "it" for you in this phrase? To me, it can function only as "they".


 
Yes, it is singular, functioning as "it". This is definitely not the most common usage, but it is a possible, grammatically correct usage. Now that I see the examples given in the previous post, sentences with "a people..." sound very natural to me.


----------



## Basil Ganglia

Nun-Translator said:


> Of the dictionaries I checked, the _New Webster's_ does not indicate either singular or plural for the entry _people_, and the others (_Random House Compact Unabridged, Pocket Oxford, _and_ Concise Oxford_) all indicate that when used to mean a community or tribe, it is pluralized as _peoples_.
> 
> Since we are concentrating on American English, here is the relevant section from the _Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary_ (Special Second Edition):
> 
> The usage note at the end of this long entry states, in part:
> 
> Please note the differential use of singular and plural verb forms in "people shares" and "peoples speak" in the sample sentences.
> 
> We can agree to differ, but please don't claim that those of us who follow this usage do not "conform to grammatical conventions".



Thank you.  This has been an enlightening discussion for me.    And I agree that my comment about grammatical conventions was inappropriate - that's why I deleted it a shortly after posting.


----------



## Khalo

According to my electronic American Oxford dictionary:



> 2 ( pl. peoples |ˌpipəlz|) [treated as sing. or pl. ] the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group : the native peoples of Canada.



Every time I hear "a people" I cringe and believe it to be wrong - but I've heard it plenty of times. Most of the time by politicians talking about a very specific group of people.


----------



## eeleenaa

I thought that my doubts about _is *people* is or are? _were going to be a nonsense, but it seems that there have been some disputes and different opinions.
At last, you have decided that the word people designs plural, don't you?
If I'm wrong, please tell it me.
Thank you.


----------



## JamesM

eeleenaa said:


> I thought that my doubts about _is *people* is or are? _were going to be a nonsense, but it seems that there have been some disputes and different opinions.
> At last, you have decided that the word people designs plural, don't you?
> If I'm wrong, please tell it me.
> Thank you.


 
Not according to the reference that Nun-Translator found. It gives the example:



> _This people shares characteristics with certain inhabitants of central Asia._


 
It would be "share", not "shares", if it were being treated as a plural. This is definitely an example of it being treated as a singular.  My instincts notwithstanding, it appears that it sometimes functions as a singular.


----------



## Nunty

In the usual sense of one person/several people, _people_ is plural. I was only pointing out the exception. This exception does not come up very often.


----------



## Basil Ganglia

JamesM said:


> It would be "share", not "shares", if it were being treated as a plural. This is definitely an example of it being treated as a singular.  My instincts notwithstanding, it appears that it sometimes functions as a singular.


I agree with James.  I stand corrected (and enlightened).


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

I realize that I am joining this conversation late, but I will agree completely with Nunty: while the most common use of "people" is as a plural (_Five people were in the room_), it can also be used as a singular, whose plural is "peoples". If "peoples" can be used as a plural (..._the various peoples who inhabited the Near East in ancient times_...), then its singular, which takes a singular verb, is "people".

If you do a Google search for the exact phrase (that is, use quotation marks around it) "a people that has", you will get many modern examples of the word being used in the singular.


----------



## Loob

mylam said:


> Now that I see the examples given in the previous post, sentences with "a people..." sound very natural to me.


They sound natural to me, too. But I would follow "a people" with a plural verb - as per the OED's "nation" definition (b), quoted earlier. 


eeleenaa said:


> I thought that my doubts about _is *people* is or are? _were going to be a nonsense, but it seems that there have been some disputes and different opinions.
> At last, you have decided that the word people designs plural, don't you?
> If I'm wrong, please tell it me.
> Thank you.


The safest rule of thumb is "treat the word _people_ as plural. But recognise that you may come across instances of singular _people _when the meaning is 'nation'_"._


----------



## kalamazoo

I agree that "people" is almost always used with a plural verb, as is "peoples." The analogy that comes to my mind is "fish" used as a plural ("fish are pretty") and "fishes" used as a plural of more fish ("different fishes have very different habits"). I don't have any problem with "people" and "peoples" both being plurals.   If you want a singular noun, use "population" instead of "people." (The American population is very diverse.)


----------

