From: Tim L. <guy...@gm...> - 2012-09-18 14:43:58
|
Benny Malengier wrote > 2012/9/18 Martin Steer < > martinsteer@.net > > >> Not shooting, just remarking that 'People' is more natural English than >> 'Persons'. >> > > Hmm, I would need to know if you are English before agreeing on this. I > was > thinking, one person, two persons, ... . Don't mind changing it to People > and People Tree for the view. Well, as the great C E M Joad [Wikipedia] would have said, it all depends what you mean by English. When I use the word English, I mean English. The OED only allows one meaning in this sense "Of or relating to the West Germanic language spoken in England and also used in many varieties throughout the world (see sense B. 2a); (of words, idioms, grammar, etc.) belonging to the English language; (of literary compositions, speeches, etc.) written or spoken in the English language.". When they use English Americans mean American English (and they use the US term British English for English). Judging by the email address Martin is probably natively Australian English. I'm not sure how different that is from English. Anyway, I agree that Persons is not natural, and People is better. I think the English would be one person, two people, however unreasonable that might seem. According to the OED: "An individual human being; a man, woman, or child. In ordinary usage, the unmarked plural is expressed by the word people; persons emphasizes the plurality and individuality of the referent (see people n. 2a)." I'm not sure what is meant by "plurality and individuality", but they give the example later on of "Bible (A.V.) Luke xv. 7 Ninety and nine just persons.". I'll get me coat. [Google videos or Urban Dictionary]. Pedants-R-us. -- View this message in context: http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/GUI-changes-tp4656529p4656551.html Sent from the GRAMPS - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |