I often use the word people to mean multiple persons. However, I’ve noticed that sometimes people will laugh/smirk when I use it. For example, one time I was talking about how my sister and her family/household travel often, saying, “Those people travel a lot,” and the person repeated those people and gave a slight laugh. I’m wondering if I may be giving some sort of unintentional implied message when I use that word.
Does the word people mean anything other than multiple persons, such as a group of persons united by a common identity (family, experience, nationality, ethnicity, etc.)?
Persons is used in a more formal context like legal document. People is used in conversations. This is generally speaking of course.
I could be wrong here but it may be that your sister is not laughing at your use of the word since it’s actually correct. it could be she’s laughing at your generalization of “those people” as that can sometimes be seen as condescending or derogatory.
she’s laughing at your generalization of “those people” as that can sometimes be seen as condescending or derogatory.
Yeah, that’s what I’m realizing from the responses to this question. Thanks for pointing that out. Btw, it wasn’t my sister laughing. It was my supervisor at work that was laughing when I referred to my sister and her group as those people. Oopsies!
I don’t think you would use Persons as the alternative there - just “they”. My sister and her friends, wow they travel a lot!
I think it’s like the difference between “fish” and “fishes.”
“Fish” refers to a group of the same type of fish, but if there are several groups of many types of fish, you would say “fishes.”
This guy Englishes!
“People” is a generic term for more than one person.
“Persons” denotes a singular distinct grouping of people. Ie, Native American persons.
Not part of the question, but “peoples” is used for a plurality of distinct persons. Ie, “this had great impact on the various peoples of North America” would be a sentence to lead into a discussion on how an event had varying impacts on each unique cultural group in North America. This is largely only used in academics, specifically anthropology and sometimes sociology, but understand this use helps clear up the reason for the distinction between “people” and “persons”.
“People” is a generic term for more than one person.
“Persons” denotes a singular distinct grouping of people. Ie, Native American persons.
Are you sure about that? Cause it sounds like you’ve never spoken to a native English speaker about the terms here.
A group of persons with a commonality are a people. The individuals are persons within a group. You can say “a group of people”, but that’s different (like a sheep vs. a flock of sheep and also a distraction here). The group is a people. People is not a generic term for multiple persons, it’s implicitly a group with some commonality. Nobody says “the American persons”, it’s “the American people”. The “various peoples of North America” would refer to a plurality of various and distinct groups of persons.
I am literally an English teacher, and have spent years editing university papers for English as an additional language learners. Yes, I am sure.
Sure you are. God I hope you’re lying.
peoples /pē′pəl/
Plural form of people
noun Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers. Often treated as a plural of person, especially in compounds. “People were dancing in the street. I met all sorts of people. This book is not intended for laypeople.” The mass of ordinary persons; the populace. Used with the. **A body of persons **living in the same country under one national government; a nationality. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik
peoples plural of people (“a race, group or nationality”) The course studies the history of Africa and the peoples who lived there.
I’m not sure if you found my original statements challenging to follow, but nothing you’ve said contradicts what I’ve said. Parts of the definitions I’ve provided are strewn in the definitions you’ve provided, and differing definitions of specific word case isn’t unusual, even within similiar cultures. Language is fluid, and the same words can mean a lot of different things.
There is often a gap between common-use language, and the academic function of words (see “racism”). This is why I emphasized the relation of the definitions I provided to the fields of anthropology and sociology, as well as why I stated it is a use almost exclusively found, in my experiences, in academia.
I don’t appreciate the strange, ignorant, tongue-in-cheek jabs at my background. If you think I have something wrong I welcome you to say so, but the strange sense of superiority you’ve attached to your comments is unnessecarily insulting.
Let me be clear then. If you are in fact an English teacher, I believe that you are very bad at it. Don’t project your arrogance on me. I’m not superior just because I used a dictionary to quash the logical fallacy of your call to authority.
Listen, man, I can get stuff wrong sometimes. I’m still not convinced I am in this case, but, even if I am off on one very specific niche use of a word that rarely, if ever, comes up, attacking my entire livelihood over it, as though it defines every facet of teaching English, is an insane overstep.
I am not so arrogant as to assume words can only ever have one meaning, nor to attack a stranger on the internet over a disagreement on that meaning. I have also made no such logical fallacy. You asked if I was “sure”, and followed up with a suggestion that I had never spoken with a native English speaker. I said yes, I am confident, and then offered up my background as evidence that, at the very least, your assessment on my experiences is incorrect. I can see how you could conflate that as a call to authority, and perhaps should have phrased things in such a way that doesn’t leave room for such assumptions. That said, I’d advise against jumping down people’s throats based on assumptions, else you’ll end up doing things like building a strawman argument, while simultaneously accusing others of logical fallicies.
I’m done with this. The level of vitriol this discussion has been laced with is unwarrented and suggests that any further conversation is a waste of time. This entire disagreement should have been:
“Hey, I think X is right.”
“Well, this says Y is right, so you must be wrong.”
“I mean language is funky and weird, a lot of words mean different things in different spaces, so whatever.”
“Yeah, sure, whatever.”
Everything beyond that was grossly unnessecary, terminally online, internet arrogance that we’d both be better off without.
Dude.
As a third-party to this conversation, I have to say that the dude writing “There is often a gap between common-use language, and the academic function of words (see “racism”). This is why I emphasized the relation of the definitions I provided to the fields of anthropology and sociology, as well as why I stated it is a use almost exclusively found, in my experiences, in academia.” seems a tad more credible than the one writing “I’m not superior just because I used a dictionary to quash the logical fallacy of your call to authority.”
I seriously think you just missed the nuance he was trying to emphasise, and you started mansplaining something he already implicitly had agreed on. Now you’re going for these rather immature “logical fallacy” arguments. Just a tip for that, btw, to up your game in that aspect. Naming fallacies to implicate that the other person is wrong is actually something called “the fallacy fallacy”, ie "because their logic contains a fallacy, the conclusion must be false. That in itself is a fallacy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
So yeah. You’re not wrong, but you’re also not right in correcting him in any way, and he’s not wrong to say that he is right.
I do believe he’s an English teacher. Just use your imagination a bit and think of how many of the things your English teacher told you didn’t seem to make sense, but when you actually dug into the material, you got an “aaa this is what he meant” - moment.
I think I saw him say your pants are stupid too. Fkn get’im!
For example, one time I was talking about how my sister and her family/household travel often, saying, “Those people travel a lot,” and the person repeated those people and gave a slight laugh. I’m wondering if I may be giving some sort of unintentional implied message when I use that word.
I joke around friends who accidentally phrase things in ways that could sound like bigotry/racism if taken out of context, and it sounds like that it what the person was laughing about.
‘Those people’, when used while judging or looking down on somebody is a common way for bigots and racists to avoid using slurs around non-bigots/racists. Something like “The park was a lot more fun before those people showed up.” while nodding in the direction of some people with darker skin. Or saying that ‘those people’ are doing something unacceptable.
It isn’t a people vs persons thing, it is specifically the phrase ‘those people’.
Seconded. They are not laughing at your misuse of the words grammatically. They are laughing at the unintentional parallel to the way bigots talk about the people they target with their hate/insults. For a joke, they are twisting the meaning of your words to imply that when you say “those people” you are referring to some minority or marginalized group in a derogatory way. “Those people are loud” is an innocent statement on it’s own when referring to a group of people being disdisruptive. But “Those people are loud” when “those people” refers to an entire demographic of people is a derogatory stereotype. “What do you mean thoooose people?”
When I say “those people” I mean people who don’t pick up their dogshit or don’t put their cart away and are fully capable lol
“People” refers to a group of humans as a unit. “Persons” also refers to a group, but puts emphasis on the individuality of the humans in the group.
https://www.thesaurus.com/e/grammar/persons-vs-people-vs-peoples/
It’s not “people vs persons” but “those people vs they”.
Conversationally, “those/these” distances you from the group you are talking about, which is humorously weird when it’s your family you’re talking about.
It’s not the meaning of the words, but habitual (and often fleeting) attribution around them that tripped you up.
PS: “People” are uncountable, “persons” are countable. That’s basically the whole difference between the two plurals. Although it’s rapidly disappearing, as “ten people” won’t raise a single eyebrow in a conversation.
Unknown people can be called persons unknown…
Persons is a set of individuals while people generally implies a group. “Those people” as a phrase carries negative connotations because of its use by racists pretending to be not quite as racist.
You can use them interchangeably as long as you’re trying to imply the person’s you are referring to are linked or similar in some way.
My understanding is that “persons” refers to people in discrete groups, where what separates those groups is pertinent to the topic being discussed.
For example - ‘indigenous persons’ refers collectively to indigenous people, but acknowledges that there are separate subgroups of indigenous people within that. You could equally say “indigenous people” and it would be correct but you lose that nuance by not acknowledging that there are internal divisions within the group you are referring to.
Not saying that’s the dictionary definition, but that’s how it’s generally used in my field.
You’d get even weirder looks if you said “those persons travel a lot”, while also sounding like someone who doesn’t really speak the language.
“Those people” can be a racist or classist dog whistle, but isn’t always, and also there isn’t really an alternative. Say what you’re going to say, and don’t worry too much about it. The people who would misinterpret it to fit an agenda are probably going to do so regardless of what words you use.
“Those people” can be a racist or classist dog whistle, but isn’t always, and also there isn’t really an alternative.
The vast majority of the time ‘they’ or ‘them’ works in the same sentence as ‘those people’ when refering a goup since you already need context for who you are referring to. I can’t even think of an example where they or them doesn’t fit.
Description of a group of white people from Georgia.
-
I heard they like fried chicken.
-
I heard those people like fried chicken.
Hell, the second one sounds racist even after making it clear I was talking about white people, and I typed the words!
This must be an American thing because adding those doesn’t suddenly make a sentence sound more racist to me or have any connotations.
I can hear it and am not American.
Try snubbing your nose while saying"those people"
I can’t think of any sayings or phrasings that would be universal across the entire globe.
-
It may helpful to think of this in terms of human rights; some rights apply to individuals so even though there may a group of them we’d refer to them as persons e.g. displaced persons. Some rights are held collectively and we would refer to them as a people e.g. Indigenous People of the Amazon.
eta: “Those people” and “you people” are both seen as racist dogwhistles. Your sister was probably laughing because you didn’t intend or get the subtext of your phrasing.
Ok, now I’m not a linguist and also not English, but in my opinion there’s a difference. “People” is a broad undefined group. “Persons” is a more defined group.
Adding “those” in front also alienates them further. So by saying “those people”, you are distancing yourself from them, despite them being your family. That is the amusing part for the person you talked to. You mildly insulted your family.
In a similar vain, “some people say” all the stuff that you won’t to be heard saying yourself, even if it’s your own opinion.
Or in some places (this might be more local) using "you"or even “one” instead of “me” when answering personal questions. For instance if someone asks: “How does it make you feel?” and answered: “It makes you feel sad” then the person answering it is distancing themselves from their own answer by literally answering on behalf on some unknown “you” when they should be using “me”. Using “people” is sort of the same just on behalf of someone else.
Adding “those” in front also alienates them further. So by saying “those people”, you are distancing yourself from them, despite them being your family.
Great observation!
Good question, and I’m not sure of the actual, lexicographic answer.
All I can say is there’s typically an implicit negative connotation when using the form “those people” regardless of intent. Usually it’s used that way when stereotyping or otherwise making a blanket statement about a group, so even benign uses of the phrase tend to sound hostile.
My guess is that “those persons” sounds more specific.
All I can say is there’s typically an implicit negative connotation when using the form “those people” regardless of intent. Usually it’s used that way when stereotyping or otherwise making a blanket statement about a group, so even benign uses of the phrase tend to sound hostile.
ohhhHHHHHhhhhh! That’s what was happening. Me and my ghetto butt had picked that term up from childhood and never realized it was considered hostile. Thanks for letting me know.
You people, and I mean you people
sometimes we gotta rework our phraseology
Sometimes people will say “That person’s name!” or “Those group of people!” in anger. “That Donald Trump! How dare he claim immigrants are eating pets?” to give you a current example.
When spoken of a family member or mutual acquaintance with a chuckle, it means more like “That person has some strange quirk but what can you do? We still love him.”
For example, you might hear “That dog! Always chasing his own tail.” So I think this is likely what you were getting from that conversation? It’s certainly not a criticism of your use of the word “people”.
