1

I am really confused about collective nouns. I get the fact that many collective nouns like team, family, army can be used in both singular and plural forms (teams, families, armies) and can be used with numbers like 1 family, 2 teams etc. whereas some collective nouns like police, cattle, staff, personnel, people etc. are always plural.

But my confusion is that even if they are only plural, sometimes we do use them with numbers like 15 people but sometimes we don't use them with numbers. I haven't seen someone saying "3 police were there". If nouns like police, staff, etc. are truly plural, why don't we use them with numbers?

If we don't use them with numbers, shouldn't they be placed in a separate category of "uncountable but plural nouns"?

Improve this question
10
  • Probably a duplicate, but the title question is very different: Is the term 'quasi-count-noun/usage' used in a grammar or articles? . Same answer in any case. Commented Feb 5, 2025 at 9:15
  • Why do you say "police" can't be used with numbers? Did someone tell you this or did you see it in a book? DW256 has found an example and I found "I can see 20 vans out in the open (without looking down side streets) and 5 police on the roof of the building." (Guardian). "There were at least 5 police with us in the small room, and 2 by the door." (Guardian) Are there any other nouns you think are like this? Commented Feb 5, 2025 at 10:01
  • I wonder whether there’s a sense in which staff refers to the whole group, so counting individuals requires more words: e.g. 5 staff members. Commented Feb 5, 2025 at 11:38
  • 1
    This question is similar to: Is the term 'quasi-count-noun/usage' used in a grammar or articles?. If you believe it’s different, please edit the question, make it clear how it’s different and/or how the answers on that question are not helpful for your problem. Commented Feb 5, 2025 at 15:03
  • Terminology needs making more precise. 'Police' [1] is morphologically singular (and in fact 'polices' [for 'police forces'] probably does occur); [2] is 'nearly' non-count (3 police for 3 police officers is inadmissible, but 2000 police is acceptable); [3] always takes a plural verb form ('police are looking ...') and [4] often refers to an etically countable set (6 police officers were present at the scene). // The fact that collective nouns like 'staff' can take either plural or singular verb forms (allowing notional agreement) has been well covered on ELU. 'Police', ... Commented Feb 5, 2025 at 16:26

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language tags these on p345 as quasi-count nouns:

There are a few plural-only nouns that are not morphologically marked as plural:

[37] i cattle livestock police poultry vermin

...

The items in [37i] cannot be used with low numerals, but are found with high round numerals (and hence might be classified as ‘quasi-count nouns’). Their denotation is thought of en masse, with none of the individuation into atomic entities that the use of a low numeral implies. Genuine count nouns (usually of somewhat more specific meaning) must be substituted in order for this individuation to take place. Compare:

[39]

i

a thousand cattle

*seven cattle [incorrect]

seven cows

ii

two hundred police

*four police [incorrect]

four policemen/policeofficers

Though, examples of police with rather low numerals can be found.

Footage of one of the arrests was captured by Seven News, showing a particularly disgruntled reveller being held down by five police. (Daily Mail)

Improve this answer
10
  • 1
    "Police" seems quite common with numbers: I wonder if this is a new usage due to the fact that these days not all police are men so "policemen" is wrong, but it's certainly used in the press. Commented Feb 5, 2025 at 10:04
  • @DW256 are police, vermin, cattle, poultry, livestock the only nouns that are like this? What about "alms" Quasi countable? I haven't heard of them. Can you share some link where I can read about them?. Commented Feb 5, 2025 at 10:26
  • 2
    @VirenderBhardwaj: No, there are also clergy, gentry, infantry, cavalry, personnel, and probably a few others. Commented Feb 5, 2025 at 10:55
  • @PeterShor what about "alms"? Commented Feb 5, 2025 at 11:03
  • @PeterShor also is saying "3 police personnel" also incorrect? I thought it's correct feels like I have heard it somewhere Commented Feb 5, 2025 at 11:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.