2

I recently wrote an answer about the verb agreement when using the word "some", and I needed a noun that didn't have a plural. I had a discussion about this with David M, that has been moved to this chat room.

But we didn't really find a noun that absolutely does not have a plural. Do you know a noun that doesn't have a plural?

Community
  • 1
ProgramFOX
  • 545

1 Answers1

4

Singulars without plurals

Mass nouns (or uncountable nouns) do not represent distinct objects, so the singular and plural semantics do not apply in the same way.

Some examples:

Abstract nouns deceit, information, cunning, and nouns derived from adjectives, such as honesty, wisdom, beauty, intelligence, poverty, stupidity, curiosity, and words ending with "ness", such as goodness, freshness, laziness, and nouns which are homonyms of adjectives with a similar meaning, such as good, bad (can also use goodness and badness), hot, and cold.

In the arts and sciences chemistry, geometry, surgery, the blues,[1] jazz, rock and roll, impressionism, surrealism. This includes those that look plural but function as grammatically singular in English: mathematics (and in British English the shortened form 'maths'), physics, mechanics, dynamics, statics, thermodynamics, aerodynamics, electronics, hydrodynamics, robotics, acoustics, optics, computer graphics, cryptography, ethics, linguistics, etc.; e.g., Mathematics is fun; Cryptography is the science of codes and ciphers; theromodynamics is the science of heat. Data often functions as a singular in terms such as 'data collection' or 'data processing'.

Chemical elements and other physical entities: aluminum (US) / aluminium (UK), copper, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, equipment, furniture, traffic, air and water

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plurals#Singulars_without_plurals

d'alar'cop
  • 2,677
  • 2
    I have some issues with these, in that they don't seem to quite meet the OP's requirement: almost all of them actually CAN be converted to plurals. (Yes, it changes the sense of the word, but...) For example, "deceit" actually does have a plural: "deceits". Many "-ness" terms can turn into "-nesses"; true, theose are mostly neologisms, but a surprising number of them have "stuck". So: I think you're on the right track, but you REALLY need to clean up / pare down the list to properly answer the question. – MT_Head Feb 21 '14 at 17:31
  • @MT_Head Yes, I suppose you are right.. But the answer is in there somewhere; and there may be controversy over which neologism are acceptable or not. I would say, one could flippantly pluralise ANYthing. – d'alar'cop Feb 21 '14 at 17:33
  • Flippantly, yes - but: deceits yes, cunnings no; geometries yes, jazzes no (except as a verb...); carbons yes; furnitures no. And so forth. – MT_Head Feb 21 '14 at 17:39
  • 'Coppers' (the kitchen utensil) is an antiquity rather than a neologism. 'Furnitures' (Louis XIV and Louis XV, for instance) has also been around for quite some time. One really has to look up each noun in a good dictionary (or better, several) to check for count and non-count senses. – Edwin Ashworth Feb 21 '14 at 17:49