Proofreading Service - Pain in the English
Proofreading Service - Pain in the English

Your Pain Is Our Pleasure

24-Hour Proofreading Service—We proofread your Google Docs or Microsoft Word files. We hate grammatical errors with a passion. Learn More

Proofreading Service - Pain in the English
Proofreading Service - Pain in the English

Your Pain Is Our Pleasure

24-Hour Proofreading Service—We proofread your Google Docs or Microsoft Word files. We hate grammatical errors with a passion. Learn More

Can a singular noun represent a plural non-collective noun?

I was reading an old novel, British English written around 1850. I came across the phrase “I saw signs of elephant in the forest”. This intrigued me as the word "elephant" implies anything from a single to multiple animals. The word "signs" seems to have taken on the role of plurality for the noun. I was asked a similar question by my partner who is editing a book in which the phrase “I saw fairy dancing in the woods,” not meaning a single fairy but many fairies dancing. Can anyone expand my knowledge on the use of a singular noun being used as a non-collective plural noun?

 

Submit Your Comment

or fill in the name and email fields below:

Comments

I have often pondered the use of the singular for animals. I don't think it has anything to do with the 'signs', but with the elephants themselves. Game hunters etc like to use the singular for the animals or birds they hunt: they go hunting snipe, for example, or bear or salmon – not snipes or bears or salmons. When referring to pet animals, however, the plural is always used: I went to Crufts and saw lots of dog? Hardly. But I went to the Serengeti and saw lots of zebra and wildebeest. Do hunters use the singular so as not to have to think about the suffering of individual animals, perhaps? Where is the cut-off point between animals we singularise and those we pluralise? (New topic: can I say singularise and pluralise??)

Cruciada Dec-03-2022

1 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

In the case of "fairy dancing", I would consider it a noun phrase, where "fairy" is used as an adjective describing the type of dancing, similar to "ballet dancing" or "jazz dancing".

user111981 May-17-2023

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

great post

sophiacruzht Nov-28-2023

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

When considering whether a singular noun can adequately represent a plural non-collective noun, it's essential to delve into the nuances of language and context. While it may seem straightforward, language often operates in shades of ambiguity and flexibility. In certain instances, a singular noun can indeed encapsulate the essence of a plural non-collective noun, depending on the context and the speaker's intention. For example, "the committee" may refer to a group of individuals collectively making decisions, even though "committee" itself is singular. However, this representation isn't always seamless and can sometimes lead to misunderstandings. Exploring these intricacies enriches our understanding of language usage and communication dynamics. For more insights on linguistic topics, you can check out https://writepaper.com/write-my-discussion-post, where various perspectives and analyses are shared.

kimmorgan Apr-16-2024

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Yes, a singular noun can represent a plural concept in certain contexts, especially in older or literary English. This usage often emphasizes the essence or archetype of the noun rather than the specific number. In phrases like “I saw signs of elephant in the forest” or “I saw fairy dancing in the woods,” the singular noun is used to evoke the general idea of elephants or fairies. This stylistic choice leverages the reader’s imagination to understand the plural meaning. .

keithsalinas Jul-26-2024

0 vote   Permalink   Report Abuse

Do you have a question? Submit your question here