>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's the one I've pretty much given up on by now - people vs persons. People is singular, persons is the plural of person. Peoples is the plural of people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Easy. Persons is a more intimate term, implying not a large number.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>e.g at a Chinese restaurant: Set meal A for 4 persons. A lift (elevator) rated for max. 8 persons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>People is more general. "How many people are here today?" But the restauranteur would say "How many persons for the table?"
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not sure where you got that,
>>>>
>>>>From speaking English all my life!
>>>>
>>>>>but AFAIK, 'people' is used for a number of persons as a group united by a kinship of some sort - national boundary for example. The Canadian people vs the peoples of the world. Persons is just the plural for person. I've never heard any definition that takes into account a numeric dividing line. By large number, do you mean 100, 10000, 1000000?
>>>>>
>>>>>There were a half million persons at Woodstock and they were a rock lovin' people.
>>>>
>>>>Aren't you mistaking people for "a people" as in a nation, as you say. People is also the collective plural of person, as in "A lot of people attended the rally", "there were so many people dead at Woodstock that the fields were red with their blood"
>>>
>>>No, I don't think so. I am not convinced that people is a collective plural of person, or at least I should say that it wasn't intended that way. Yes, it is being used that way in common speach, but so are a lot of things that aren't correct.
>>
>>Alan, I'm not sure but are you Canadian born and bred or, as your name might imply, you immigrated later in life.
>>Trust me. People is the collective plural of a person:
>
>Two Generation Canadian born and bred.
>
>>
>>"What are all these people doing here?"
>>"These people must learn some respect for the law" (talking about, say, looters)
>>
>>>>
>>>>If you say "there are a lot of persons here" it somehow implies that you refer to their individaulity at the same time.
>>>
>>>Why is it really any different than saying "a lot of apples", or "a lot of cars".
>>
>>Because we just happen to have 2 similar words for the same thing, but with nuances in their meanings.
>>
>>>A lot of persons just means that - a large number of individual persons.
>>
>>Sounds weird to me. I'd never say that.
>>
>>>Collectively, they may well form a 'people',
>>
>>No. A people is a nation/race.
>
>Websters:
>"a body of persons that are united by a common culture, tradition, or sense of kinship, that typically have common language, institutions, and beliefs, and that often constitute a politically organized group"

This is being pedantic. I didn't go to Websters just to dig out the "extra" meanings of "a people" (or peoples - pl) as they have it; I could have written "etc." on the end but they're all much of a muchness.

Strange you didn't quote:

1 plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest
2 plural : HUMAN BEINGS, PERSONS -- often used in compounds instead of persons -- often used attributively {people skills}
3 plural : the members of a family or kinship

which is more or less what I've been telling you

>
>"human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest"
>
>Emphasis is mine.
>
>>
>>>but they are still individual persons, regardless how many of them there are.
>>>
>>>A lot of persons attended the rally.
>>
>>Sounds weird to me. I'd never say that.
>
>Neither would most. I also slip into the vernacular most of the time too. But it is 'vernacular' and not necessarily correct English.
>
>>
>>>They may well form a subculture of persons who love car racing, and that subculture may well be referred to as a people united by a commonality. But they are still persons who collectively make up a people.
>>
>>No, no, no - a people is a race/nation.
>
>See above.
>
>>
>>I won't contribute any more to this because it would seem that your interpretation of the 2 words is dyed in the wool. I wonder if that's true of all Canadians. Canada is so multi-cultural that I wonder if terms have changed in common use. Here, in the country that spawned the language, I've given you the definitions :-)
>
>Yes, Canada has changed to the point that we now use people as a plural for person,

I take this as sarcasm.

>and no, you didn't give me a 'definition'

"People is also the collective plural of person, as in "A lot of people attended the rally", ..."

"People is the collective plural of a person..."

defines it, (in ths disputed sense) I'd say (see above)

>as far as I can tell; only your common use of the word and your own understanding of what it means.

Not just mine. The whole English-speaking world, that of all English-speaking peoples. You are the only person who I've ever encountered who would say "There's a whole bunch of persons outside" and that questions the use of "people".

Whatever.

- Whoever said that women are the weaker sex never tried to wrest the bedclothes off one in the middle of the night
- Worry is the interest you pay, in advance, for a loan that you may never need to take out.