Difference between “people” and “persons”? [duplicate]
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
persons vs people
1 answer
At least 5 people died in Bangladesh and more than 200 are injured.
At least 5 persons died in Bangladesh and more than 200 are injured.
word-usage word-choice
edited 2 days ago
fjack
693312
asked 2 days ago
Lynn xu
291
New contributor
Lynn xu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
marked as duplicate by Jason Bassford, Nathan Tuggy, Eddie Kal, J.R.♦ word-usage
Users with the word-usage badge can single-handedly close word-usage questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
2 days ago
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
persons vs people
1 answer
At least 5 people died in Bangladesh and more than 200 are injured.
At least 5 persons died in Bangladesh and more than 200 are injured.
word-usage word-choice
edited 2 days ago
fjack
693312
asked 2 days ago
Lynn xu
291
New contributor
Lynn xu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
marked as duplicate by Jason Bassford, Nathan Tuggy, Eddie Kal, J.R.♦ word-usage
Users with the word-usage badge can single-handedly close word-usage questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
2 days ago
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
persons vs people
1 answer
At least 5 people died in Bangladesh and more than 200 are injured.
At least 5 persons died in Bangladesh and more than 200 are injured.
word-usage word-choice
edited 2 days ago
fjack
693312
asked 2 days ago
Lynn xu
291
New contributor
Lynn xu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
This question already has an answer here:
persons vs people
1 answer
At least 5 people died in Bangladesh and more than 200 are injured.
At least 5 persons died in Bangladesh and more than 200 are injured.
This question already has an answer here:
persons vs people
1 answer
word-usage word-choice
word-usage word-choice
edited 2 days ago
fjack
693312
asked 2 days ago
Lynn xu
291
New contributor
Lynn xu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 days ago
fjack
693312
asked 2 days ago
Lynn xu
291
New contributor
Lynn xu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 days ago
fjack
693312
edited 2 days ago
fjack
693312
edited 2 days ago
fjack
693312
693312
asked 2 days ago
Lynn xu
291
New contributor
Lynn xu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 days ago
Lynn xu
291
asked 2 days ago
Lynn xu
291
291
New contributor
Lynn xu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Lynn xu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Lynn xu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
marked as duplicate by Jason Bassford, Nathan Tuggy, Eddie Kal, J.R.♦ word-usage
Users with the word-usage badge can single-handedly close word-usage questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
2 days ago
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by Jason Bassford, Nathan Tuggy, Eddie Kal, J.R.♦ word-usage
Users with the word-usage badge can single-handedly close word-usage questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
2 days ago
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
You could probably have answered this with a quick Google. This dictionary explains the historic difference.
Historically, "persons" was used to describe a specific, countable number of individuals. So in your examples above, "persons" would have been the correct word to use, because they have been counted, and there are 5 of them.
"People" was once therefore only used to describe an undetermined number. However, that is no longer the case, and the dictionary link I gave above explains that for several decades "people" has been preferred as the plural of "person" in all uses. "Persons" is not incorrect, but tends to be used only in extremely formal settings such as legal documents.
answered 2 days ago
Astralbee
8,986533
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Persons can be archaic and not. If not, then it is only used in official, law language or to highlight how those 'persons' are respected.
For example:
Persons under the age of 18 are not allowed to buy alcoholic drinks.
Police must have a legal reason to arrest persons who are accused of having committed a crime.
You see, it's an official law language. These sentences would be acceptable in a law book in a certain context.
Example of highlighting how the persons are respected:
The new apartment building will have wheelchair access for persons with disabilities.
Otherwise it's just archaic and you should avoid it.
answered 2 days ago
Марк Павлович
9310
The situation is not as extreme as you make it out to be.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
2 days ago
1
Explain if I'm wrong
– Марк Павлович
2 days ago
2
I didn't say you were "wrong", just that you had stated the case in terms that were too extreme. It is possible to use person and also the plural persons in non-legalistic contexts. He's an important person who should be invited to the conference. And the plural persons is often used in a desire to speak respectfully: The new apartment building will have wheelchair access for persons with disabilities.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
2 days ago
I edited my answer. If I haven't still described all usages of 'persons', feel free to edit my answer.
– Марк Павлович
2 days ago
It's used a lot in headlines, too. I think Anand, in his answer here, summarized it well: It prevails only in a few contexts, most notably law and law enforcement, and in a few common phrases. Elsewhere, it usually gives way to people. That seems more accurate than: Otherwise it's just archaic and you should avoid it..
– J.R.♦
2 days ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
You could probably have answered this with a quick Google. This dictionary explains the historic difference.
Historically, "persons" was used to describe a specific, countable number of individuals. So in your examples above, "persons" would have been the correct word to use, because they have been counted, and there are 5 of them.
"People" was once therefore only used to describe an undetermined number. However, that is no longer the case, and the dictionary link I gave above explains that for several decades "people" has been preferred as the plural of "person" in all uses. "Persons" is not incorrect, but tends to be used only in extremely formal settings such as legal documents.
answered 2 days ago
Astralbee
8,986533
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
You could probably have answered this with a quick Google. This dictionary explains the historic difference.
Historically, "persons" was used to describe a specific, countable number of individuals. So in your examples above, "persons" would have been the correct word to use, because they have been counted, and there are 5 of them.
"People" was once therefore only used to describe an undetermined number. However, that is no longer the case, and the dictionary link I gave above explains that for several decades "people" has been preferred as the plural of "person" in all uses. "Persons" is not incorrect, but tends to be used only in extremely formal settings such as legal documents.
answered 2 days ago
Astralbee
8,986533
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
You could probably have answered this with a quick Google. This dictionary explains the historic difference.
Historically, "persons" was used to describe a specific, countable number of individuals. So in your examples above, "persons" would have been the correct word to use, because they have been counted, and there are 5 of them.
"People" was once therefore only used to describe an undetermined number. However, that is no longer the case, and the dictionary link I gave above explains that for several decades "people" has been preferred as the plural of "person" in all uses. "Persons" is not incorrect, but tends to be used only in extremely formal settings such as legal documents.
answered 2 days ago
Astralbee
8,986533
You could probably have answered this with a quick Google. This dictionary explains the historic difference.
Historically, "persons" was used to describe a specific, countable number of individuals. So in your examples above, "persons" would have been the correct word to use, because they have been counted, and there are 5 of them.
"People" was once therefore only used to describe an undetermined number. However, that is no longer the case, and the dictionary link I gave above explains that for several decades "people" has been preferred as the plural of "person" in all uses. "Persons" is not incorrect, but tends to be used only in extremely formal settings such as legal documents.
answered 2 days ago
Astralbee
8,986533
answered 2 days ago
Astralbee
8,986533
answered 2 days ago
Astralbee
8,986533
answered 2 days ago
Astralbee
8,986533
8,986533
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Persons can be archaic and not. If not, then it is only used in official, law language or to highlight how those 'persons' are respected.
For example:
Persons under the age of 18 are not allowed to buy alcoholic drinks.
Police must have a legal reason to arrest persons who are accused of having committed a crime.
You see, it's an official law language. These sentences would be acceptable in a law book in a certain context.
Example of highlighting how the persons are respected:
The new apartment building will have wheelchair access for persons with disabilities.
Otherwise it's just archaic and you should avoid it.
answered 2 days ago
Марк Павлович
9310
The situation is not as extreme as you make it out to be.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
2 days ago
1
Explain if I'm wrong
– Марк Павлович
2 days ago
2
I didn't say you were "wrong", just that you had stated the case in terms that were too extreme. It is possible to use person and also the plural persons in non-legalistic contexts. He's an important person who should be invited to the conference. And the plural persons is often used in a desire to speak respectfully: The new apartment building will have wheelchair access for persons with disabilities.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
2 days ago
I edited my answer. If I haven't still described all usages of 'persons', feel free to edit my answer.
– Марк Павлович
2 days ago
It's used a lot in headlines, too. I think Anand, in his answer here, summarized it well: It prevails only in a few contexts, most notably law and law enforcement, and in a few common phrases. Elsewhere, it usually gives way to people. That seems more accurate than: Otherwise it's just archaic and you should avoid it..
– J.R.♦
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Persons can be archaic and not. If not, then it is only used in official, law language or to highlight how those 'persons' are respected.
For example:
Persons under the age of 18 are not allowed to buy alcoholic drinks.
Police must have a legal reason to arrest persons who are accused of having committed a crime.
You see, it's an official law language. These sentences would be acceptable in a law book in a certain context.
Example of highlighting how the persons are respected:
The new apartment building will have wheelchair access for persons with disabilities.
Otherwise it's just archaic and you should avoid it.
answered 2 days ago
Марк Павлович
9310
The situation is not as extreme as you make it out to be.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
2 days ago
1
Explain if I'm wrong
– Марк Павлович
2 days ago
2
I didn't say you were "wrong", just that you had stated the case in terms that were too extreme. It is possible to use person and also the plural persons in non-legalistic contexts. He's an important person who should be invited to the conference. And the plural persons is often used in a desire to speak respectfully: The new apartment building will have wheelchair access for persons with disabilities.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
2 days ago
I edited my answer. If I haven't still described all usages of 'persons', feel free to edit my answer.
– Марк Павлович
2 days ago
It's used a lot in headlines, too. I think Anand, in his answer here, summarized it well: It prevails only in a few contexts, most notably law and law enforcement, and in a few common phrases. Elsewhere, it usually gives way to people. That seems more accurate than: Otherwise it's just archaic and you should avoid it..
– J.R.♦
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Persons can be archaic and not. If not, then it is only used in official, law language or to highlight how those 'persons' are respected.
For example:
Persons under the age of 18 are not allowed to buy alcoholic drinks.
Police must have a legal reason to arrest persons who are accused of having committed a crime.
You see, it's an official law language. These sentences would be acceptable in a law book in a certain context.
Example of highlighting how the persons are respected:
The new apartment building will have wheelchair access for persons with disabilities.
Otherwise it's just archaic and you should avoid it.
answered 2 days ago
Марк Павлович
9310
Persons can be archaic and not. If not, then it is only used in official, law language or to highlight how those 'persons' are respected.
For example:
Persons under the age of 18 are not allowed to buy alcoholic drinks.
Police must have a legal reason to arrest persons who are accused of having committed a crime.
You see, it's an official law language. These sentences would be acceptable in a law book in a certain context.
Example of highlighting how the persons are respected:
The new apartment building will have wheelchair access for persons with disabilities.
Otherwise it's just archaic and you should avoid it.
answered 2 days ago
Марк Павлович
9310
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
Марк Павлович
9310
answered 2 days ago
Марк Павлович
9310
answered 2 days ago
Марк Павлович
9310
9310
The situation is not as extreme as you make it out to be.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
2 days ago
1
Explain if I'm wrong
– Марк Павлович
2 days ago
2
I didn't say you were "wrong", just that you had stated the case in terms that were too extreme. It is possible to use person and also the plural persons in non-legalistic contexts. He's an important person who should be invited to the conference. And the plural persons is often used in a desire to speak respectfully: The new apartment building will have wheelchair access for persons with disabilities.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
2 days ago
I edited my answer. If I haven't still described all usages of 'persons', feel free to edit my answer.
– Марк Павлович
2 days ago
It's used a lot in headlines, too. I think Anand, in his answer here, summarized it well: It prevails only in a few contexts, most notably law and law enforcement, and in a few common phrases. Elsewhere, it usually gives way to people. That seems more accurate than: Otherwise it's just archaic and you should avoid it..
– J.R.♦
2 days ago
add a comment |
The situation is not as extreme as you make it out to be.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
2 days ago
1
Explain if I'm wrong
– Марк Павлович
2 days ago
2
I didn't say you were "wrong", just that you had stated the case in terms that were too extreme. It is possible to use person and also the plural persons in non-legalistic contexts. He's an important person who should be invited to the conference. And the plural persons is often used in a desire to speak respectfully: The new apartment building will have wheelchair access for persons with disabilities.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
2 days ago
I edited my answer. If I haven't still described all usages of 'persons', feel free to edit my answer.
– Марк Павлович
2 days ago
It's used a lot in headlines, too. I think Anand, in his answer here, summarized it well: It prevails only in a few contexts, most notably law and law enforcement, and in a few common phrases. Elsewhere, it usually gives way to people. That seems more accurate than: Otherwise it's just archaic and you should avoid it..
– J.R.♦
2 days ago
The situation is not as extreme as you make it out to be.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
2 days ago
The situation is not as extreme as you make it out to be.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
2 days ago
1
1
Explain if I'm wrong
– Марк Павлович
2 days ago
Explain if I'm wrong
– Марк Павлович
2 days ago
2
2
I didn't say you were "wrong", just that you had stated the case in terms that were too extreme. It is possible to use person and also the plural persons in non-legalistic contexts. He's an important person who should be invited to the conference. And the plural persons is often used in a desire to speak respectfully: The new apartment building will have wheelchair access for persons with disabilities.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
2 days ago
I didn't say you were "wrong", just that you had stated the case in terms that were too extreme. It is possible to use person and also the plural persons in non-legalistic contexts. He's an important person who should be invited to the conference. And the plural persons is often used in a desire to speak respectfully: The new apartment building will have wheelchair access for persons with disabilities.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
2 days ago
I edited my answer. If I haven't still described all usages of 'persons', feel free to edit my answer.
– Марк Павлович
2 days ago
I edited my answer. If I haven't still described all usages of 'persons', feel free to edit my answer.
– Марк Павлович
2 days ago
It's used a lot in headlines, too. I think Anand, in his answer here, summarized it well: It prevails only in a few contexts, most notably law and law enforcement, and in a few common phrases. Elsewhere, it usually gives way to people. That seems more accurate than: Otherwise it's just archaic and you should avoid it..
– J.R.♦
2 days ago
It's used a lot in headlines, too. I think Anand, in his answer here, summarized it well: It prevails only in a few contexts, most notably law and law enforcement, and in a few common phrases. Elsewhere, it usually gives way to people. That seems more accurate than: Otherwise it's just archaic and you should avoid it..
– J.R.♦
2 days ago
add a comment |
