Brian Betty <bbetty@...> wrote:
> On 3-30-99, Steg B. wrote: "Isn't the singular of cattle "cow/bull"?"
>=20
> If humour isn't marked, forgive me, but the plural of cow is cows and =
the
> plural of bull, bulls. Cattle is the term for a collective, ie. a group=
of
> said animals. In this case the collective is treated like a plural =
noun.
> "The cattle are moving north."
I have heard "cattle" used as a plural. "Three cattle are moving
north." I personally use it as its own singular. "A cattle is moving
north." I know this is nonstandard, but my meaning is clear and "head of
cattle" sounds awkward. It wouldn't be the first hooved mammal to have =
the
same singular and plural.
> This is the same as people. The plural of man and woman is men and =
women,
> respectively. The collective noun is people, which was often treated as
> the suppletive plural of person. Person, people. Nowadays I hear =
'persons'
> as a way to make a nongendered plural of h. sapiens, as opposed to the
> collective noun people. Weird.
When I was young (I was born in '54) I was taught that "people" was =
the
plural of "person". "Persons" was only used in the set phrase "person or
persons unknown".
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D
Dennis Paul Himes <> dennis@himes.connix.com
homepage: http://www.connix.com/~dennis/dennis.htm
Gladilatian page: http://www.connix.com/~dennis/glad/lang.htm
=20
Disclaimer: "True, I talk of dreams; which are the children of an idle
brain, begot of nothing but vain fantasy; which is as thin of substance =
as
the air." - Romeo & Juliet, Act I Scene iv Verse =
96-99