Re: "write him" was Re: More questions

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Costentin Cornomorus wrote:

> --- Stephen Mulraney <ataltanie@...>
> scrievit:
>
> > I've always wondered why folk in the US choose
> > to use the plural form of "folk" :)
>
> Cos there's more than one here?
When I was younger, which isn't so long ago, 'folk' was a mass noun of
rare occurence and it would not have been unreasonable to mark it as
'archaic' in a dictionary. But the important thing in that sentence is
that it's (was) a mass noun. You wouldn't ask someone to put a dozen
sugars in your cup of coffee; no more should you have talked of 'folks'.
Of course, American influence has changed this and while it isn't that
common here, I wouldn't think, I can certainly accept it as pluralisable
(or maybe that's because the only people who use it any more are American,
I'm not sure).

Anyway, in Robert Jung's message which I received straight after yours,
that use of `folks' would be better replaced by `peoples'.

--
Tristan