Now and then I hear a word bandied about that makes no sense to
me. Most of the time, it is spouted by highbrow academic types—say, some anthropologists,
ethnologists, archeologists, museum curators and, sometimes, historians—and it always
strikes me as uppity.
The word: peoples.
Why does anyone, ever, need to add a plural-forming “s” to a word
that’s already plural? (I opened a dictionary and it defined “people” as “plural:
human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest.”)
You can’t have a single people—that would be a “person.” By its very existence,
the word “people” means more than one.
Is it possible to make a plural even more plural by adding an “s”?
I don’t think so. It makes no sense to say womens or mens or childrens. Why not
add more plurality to, say, chickens by adding an “s” and making it chickenss? Or,
if you mean more horses than just horses, say horsess? And, of course, if you don’t
find the word cattle to be plural enough to suit your fancy, make it cattles.
I don’t know about you, but I see no need for a grandiose,
ostentatious word like peoples. But I did find a dictionary that defined “peoples”
as the “Third-person singular simple present indicative form of people.”
Huh?
I rest my case.
