# Persons vs. People? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 29, 2006, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/persons-vs-people/378335 "2006-10-29T16:34:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Jinx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Jinx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jinx)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2006, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/persons-vs-people/378335/1 "2006-10-29T16:34:43Z")
Why is the word “persons” used, esp. by the media? And, why is this the prefered word by the press vs. “people”? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2006, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/persons-vs-people/378335/2 "2006-10-29T16:37:42Z")
[QUOTE=Jinx] Why is the word “persons” used, esp. by the media? And, why is this the prefered word by the press vs. “people”? [/QUOTE] Can you give an example? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2006, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/persons-vs-people/378335/3 "2006-10-29T16:54:26Z")
“People” as the colloquial plural of “persons” is slightly solecistic, and I believe it’s a comparatively recent (i.e., 20th Century) development by and large. People means “a populace taken as a whole,” i.e., “the Czech people” – those of Czech ethnicity and/or those residing in the Czech Republic. It can and does take its own plural – I recall that Communist writings regularly referenced “peoples” meaning the multinational ethnicities who were supposed to unite and overthrow their capitalist bonds, or those who had done so and were united in the Soviet Union. (No endorsement of this view, of course, simply an example of a common use of “peoples.”) “Persons” means “more than one individual, taken together singly.” Although distressingly common, “Fourteen people were killed by the sniper’s bullets” should read “Fourteen persons…”, and in good journalistic writing does. ---
**Author:** ![jakeline](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a8b319/32.png) [@jakeline](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakeline)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2006, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/persons-vs-people/378335/4 "2006-10-29T16:57:57Z")
Just going off my own understanding, “persons” means multiple individuals and “people” means a group of individuals. “Persons” emphasizes the fact that they are individuals, and “people” emphasizes the fact that they are a group. Looking at the definition of “people” at [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com), it seems to support this a bit: > [@](#): > > persons, whether men, women, or children, considered as numerable individuals forming a group However, I could be making a distinction that no one else makes, and they’re using “persons” just because it can’t be also used as a verb like “people” can. On preview, it looks like **Polycarp** said what I wanted to, but much more clearly! ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2006, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/persons-vs-people/378335/5 "2006-10-29T17:08:55Z")
Adding an example that makes it even clearer, “We the _people_” ordained and established the Constitution, which guarantees that each of the _persons_ under its rule has guaranteed rights. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/persons-vs-people/378335/6 "2006-10-30T01:58:43Z")
Professional writer and editor here. **Polycarp** , do you have a cite for your claims? Because you are flatly contradicted by the AP Stylebook: > [@](#): > > Originally posted by **AP Stylebook** > Use _person_ when speaking of an individual: _One person waited for the bus._ The word _people_ is preferred to _persons_ in all plural uses. _Persons_ should be used only when it is in a direct quote or part of a title as in _Bureau of Missing Persons_. Even if it was once the case that “People mean[t] ‘a populace taken as a whole’” (and I’d like to see a cite before I accept that as true), _people_ has been used as the plural of _person_ long enough that the usage is now completely proper and unexceptionable, as witnessed by its appearance in the AP Stylebook. The dogmatic statement that _persons_ should always be used as the plural of _person_ is less defensible, IMHO, than opposition to split infinitives and ending sentences with propositions. I personally find _persons_ more grating than those so-called errors of grammar. In my formal writing I tend to avoid split infinitives and prepositions at the end of sentences whenever possible, but I’ll use them on rare occasions. But I would never write _persons,_ except in the cases suggested by the AP. And this is not because I am required to use the AP style, or am slavishly attached to it. This has always been my personal style, and would remain so even if the AP were on the other side. I didn’t even know it was the AP style until I looked it up for this thread. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/persons-vs-people/378335/7 "2006-10-30T02:16:43Z")
Oh, and to answer the OP, I can’t say that I’ve noticed this tendency, and to the extent that media outlets follow AP style, it shouldn’t be happening. But if some other widely used stylebook supports it, that could be the explanation. (It’s also possible, I suppose, that AP has changed: my copy, from which the quote in my previous post was taken, is the Sixth Trade Edition, from 1996.) If it’s none of these things, I suspect that it may derive from its use in police and military speech and writing. Although some people may think it’s cool to say things like “please be advised” and use other “official” sounding jargon, that’s hardly a recommendation to a serious writer or anyone who wants to be one. ---
**Author:** ![Martha\_Medea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/43a26b/32.png) [@Martha\_Medea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martha_Medea)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/persons-vs-people/378335/8 "2006-10-30T02:22:05Z")
[QUOTE=commasense] I personally find _persons_ more grating than those so-called errors of grammar. In my formal writing I tend to avoid split infinitives and prepositions at the end of sentences whenever possible, but I’ll use them on rare occasions. But I would never write _persons,_ except in the cases suggested by the AP. [/QUOTE] Totally agree. I edit news text and will almost always change ‘persons’ to ‘people’. I should forward the AP style guide to the writers whose copy I edit. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/persons-vs-people/378335/9 "2006-10-30T02:34:22Z")
Odd this question came up today. Today I was listening to a local news broadcast on the radio and the reporter corrected herself in a sentence something like, “Yesterday, 12 people, rather _persons_. . . .” ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/persons-vs-people/378335/10 "2006-10-30T02:34:27Z")
It occurs to me that there are a few phrases that have become common recently that may have contributed to the OP’s perception: “person of color” and “person of interest” (for a criminal suspect), for instance. Pluralizing these terms would take _persons_, not _people_ (per AP style). Seeing these examples, other writers might have started using _persons_ “incorrectly.” ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/persons-vs-people/378335/11 "2006-10-30T02:44:28Z")
The OED says it’s colloquial, but has cites dating back to 1475. Shakespeare used it in **Much Ado About Nothing** and **Anthony and Cleopatra**. ---
**Author:** ![Rigamarole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/77aa72/32.png) [@Rigamarole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rigamarole)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/persons-vs-people/378335/12 "2006-10-30T03:50:04Z")
[QUOTE=Polycarp] Although distressingly common, “Fourteen people were killed by the sniper’s bullets” should read “Fourteen persons…” [/QUOTE] Is it really that distressing? I, for one, am not at all distressed. Why should we be? ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/persons-vs-people/378335/13 "2006-10-30T04:23:03Z")
“Person” can also mean a “legal person”, such as a corporation. You wouldn’t use “people” as the plural in this case. It’s used this way in the Ontario Building Code. For example, in Subsection 2.17.4: “Qualifications - **Persons** Engaged in the Business of Providing Design Activities to the Public” we have Sentence 2.17.4.2 (1): > [@](#): > > Subject to Article 2.17.4.9., the _director_ may register an applicant, or renew a registration, in each class of registration applied for, if > (a) the applicant or _registered_ person or, **if the applicant or _registered_ person is a corporation or partnership** , a director, officer, partner, or employee of the applicant or _registered_ person, has successfully completed the examination…" (Bolding mine; italics theirs. An italicised word indicates one with a definition under the Code.) [sub]Guess what I’m studying these days… [/sub] ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/persons-vs-people/378335/14 "2006-10-30T04:54:26Z")
[QUOTE=RealityChuck] The OED says it’s colloquial, but has cites dating back to 1475. Shakespeare used it in **Much Ado About Nothing** and **Anthony and Cleopatra**. [/QUOTE] Which? Persons or people? ---
**Author:** ![TheLoadedDog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@TheLoadedDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheLoadedDog)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/persons-vs-people/378335/15 "2006-10-30T05:09:10Z")
I don’t buy that “persons” is the correct style these days. Not in a journalistic sense, anyway. It sounds stilted. It’s ok if you want to be very formal (and possibly legal) with something like “maximum elevator capacity twelve persons” or if you want to sound like a cop: “We apprehended three male persons who were attempting to decamp from the scene” instead of “we caught three people trying to get away”, but for everyday English, it’s gotta be “people”. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/persons-vs-people/378335/16 "2006-10-30T06:10:40Z")
_Antony and Cleopatra_: > [@](#): > > To-night we’ll wander through the streets and note > The qualities of people. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/persons-vs-people/378335/17 "2006-10-30T06:11:44Z")
_Anthony and Cleopatra_: > [@](#): > > Eight wild-boars roasted whole at a breakfast, and > but twelve persons there; is this true? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/persons-vs-people/378335/18 "2006-10-30T14:01:07Z")
Well, **my** ignorance has been fought here, and vanquished. In my defense, I want to point out that the OP was saying, “Why the distinction?” and I responded with the classic formal-usage stylistic nuance: four persons, a group of people. Like all you people, I use the “people” plural colloquially most of the time. And I’m intrigued by the AP’s decision to go with colloquial usage rather than the fussy precisionism I had outlined. Given that, I’m curious about their standards for “sentence adverbs.” Hopefully, they don’t permit them, but most probably, they do. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/persons-vs-people/378335/19 "2006-10-30T15:22:34Z")
[QUOTE=TheLoadedDog] or if you want to sound like a cop: “We apprehended three male persons who were attempting to decamp from the scene” instead of “we caught three people trying to get away”, but for everyday English, it’s gotta be “people”. [/QUOTE] Unfortunately it seems that the cop-isms “male” and “female” (as opposed to “man” and “woman”) have become mainstream usage. Ugh. You hear people on the street as well as reporters saying things like “The suspects are described as three black males.” Why not “black men”? “Male” to me is an adjective; it should be followed by a species. Male what? Humans? Wildebeest? [QUOTE=commasense] (It’s also possible, I suppose, that AP has changed: my copy, from which the quote in my previous post was taken, is the Sixth Trade Edition, from 1996.) [/QUOTE] My 2002 edition concurs with yours. It would have to be a very recent change. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2006, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/persons-vs-people/378335/20 "2006-10-30T19:30:22Z")
I always thought “persons” sounded a bit odd, but the vintage 1960 World Book Encyclopedia I had growing up (actually I still do own it) routinely used the word “persons”, as in “Many persons consult a doctor when…”. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/persons-vs-people/378335.md?page=2)