Okay, people! (Peoples? Persons?) Have you ever wondered when to use “persons” vs. “people” vs. “peoples”? Yes, all are proper plural forms in English. Let’s leave the singular “person” out of things for a moment. If we’re looking for the correct plural form, what is a writer/speaker to do?
Well, the simplest answer in most cases in the present-day, unless we’re talking legal terminology, is that “people” is usually preferred. One person. Many people. If you’re a native English speaker, I’m guessing you have the same preference; however, modern-day norms aren’t the end of this conversation.
If you were to compare usages of “persons” vs. “people” in the past four hundred years, preferences and recommendations vary widely.
Notice the many shared dips and climbs in popularity, as well as the moments of discord.
Both terms have been around for a long time, but the debate between them has been complicated over the centuries. Are they synonyms? Are they subtly different and thus to be used in different circumstances? Is one of them simply the better word? It depends on when you ask the question.
Matters of etymology begin to break down their possible differences, though.
- “People,” an English word in use since the 1200s, shares an etymological origin with the word “population,” both coming from the Latin word populus, meaning the collective idea of “the masses” or “populous.” A collective group. Remember this idea.
- “Persons,” also in use since the 1200s, shares a root with “persona,” both terms coming from the Latin word persona, meaning a character in a play, a mask worn by an actor, and or an individual person. Notice the individuality that’s at the core of this word.
Do you see what’s happening here?
Some have argued, over the course of centuries, that if we’re talking about a countable, specific group of individuals, one should use “persons,” and contrariwise, if we’re talking about a general mass of people—a crowd? a horde? a throng?—the term “people” is more appropriate. Legal usages in the present day harken back to this distinction. (Lawyers like things organized, countable, and specific, right? Not just guidelines for the multitudes.)
Of course, others have argued it’s a simple matter of right and wrong, that one word is preferable to the other. We all have our opinions. I hear that. (For example, I just used “contrariwise,” which could be argued as an annoying word. Or a cool one. Your pick.)
There’s also the fact that some have argued that “persons” vs. “people” is a class-distinction, with “people” referring to the “promiscuous multitude” (yes, we heard you, George Crabb, in your 1818 publication, English Synonyms Explained). Sigh. The complexities of societal inequalities caught up in a word. We’ll not use that as part of our distinction in our modern conversations.
All this said, we’re starting to get some clarity over the differences between “persons” vs. “people,” even if there’s a good chance you’ll never have to use “persons” in most contexts; however, a question lingers:
Why does “people” (a plural noun) have the plural form “peoples”?
If you remember that “people” is already talking about groups rather than individuals, than this is easy. With “peoples,” we’re talking about a group of groups, specifically different groups that share a commonality. For example, “Indigenous peoples” can refer to a collection of native tribes. “Germanic peoples” refers to the many historical groups of people that spoke forms of Germanic languages.
“Peoples” sounds much more confusing than it actually is.
I think this just about wraps it up, as long as you remember not to start tossing apostrophes in there, because you know that apostrophes never create a plural (on resumes, holiday cards, or otherwise).
Got it, peeps? Peeps … Oh, wait … We’ll save that for next time.
Sign-up for my monthly language tips and trivia email newsletter for more articles like this.