Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
What is the Plural?
22 Answers
Whenever one hears a sum of money mentioned by a BBC newsreader it is expressed as "Pound" ; for instance, "�100 Pound" whereas surely the plural of pound is pounds? They do not refer to multiples of the American dollar as "$100 dollar" etc. but use the correct plural "dollars" so why is it that plural pounds are translated into "Pound"?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rutineli. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The full, official name, pound sterling, (plural: pounds sterling) is used mainly in formal contexts and also when it is necessary to distinguish the United Kingdom currency from other currencies with the same name. Otherwise the term pound is normally used. The currency name is sometimes abbreviated to just sterling, particularly in the wholesale financial markets, but not when referring to specific amounts; for example, "Payment is accepted in sterling" but never "These cost five sterling".[5][6] The abbreviations "ster." or "stg." are sometimes used. The term British pound is commonly used in less formal contexts, although it is not an official name of the currency. A common slang term is quid (singular and plural).
Sorry...I obviously did not make my position clear earlier. I don't agree that pounds is the only correct usage when a plural is intended.
Pound and - as already indicated in my previous answer - foot have both for centuries been used to indicate a plural concept.
Q. How tall are you?
A. Five foot ten.
Who ever says 'Five feet ten' in these circumstances?
The earliest recorded use of singular pound in the same way dates back about three quarters of a millennium. Here's a (modernised) quote from the 1300s...
"A gold ring drew he forth anon
A hundred pound was worth the stone."
And another from Middleton's Five Gallants in the 1700s...
"I can lend you three pound, sir."
Even when we use the slang word, quid, nowadays we invariably use the singular as in...
"I'll give you five quid for it." Nobody says, "I'll give you five quids for it", do they?
As I suggested before, there are many circumstances in which it is perfectly good idiomatic English to say, "A hundred pound."
Pound and - as already indicated in my previous answer - foot have both for centuries been used to indicate a plural concept.
Q. How tall are you?
A. Five foot ten.
Who ever says 'Five feet ten' in these circumstances?
The earliest recorded use of singular pound in the same way dates back about three quarters of a millennium. Here's a (modernised) quote from the 1300s...
"A gold ring drew he forth anon
A hundred pound was worth the stone."
And another from Middleton's Five Gallants in the 1700s...
"I can lend you three pound, sir."
Even when we use the slang word, quid, nowadays we invariably use the singular as in...
"I'll give you five quid for it." Nobody says, "I'll give you five quids for it", do they?
As I suggested before, there are many circumstances in which it is perfectly good idiomatic English to say, "A hundred pound."
Apologies for the sterling bit but it all fitted together...
Well Quizmoster just because we all use POUND does not mean it is correct, there are many world that many people say incorrectly that they then because known as 'another way of saying'.
I too say POUND sometimes but the correct term is POUNDS.
Well Quizmoster just because we all use POUND does not mean it is correct, there are many world that many people say incorrectly that they then because known as 'another way of saying'.
I too say POUND sometimes but the correct term is POUNDS.
If, quote, "we all use pound", how can it possibly be wrong? This isn't France, where an Acad�mie tries to tell people how to use their language. Our language is as we make it, end of story, and this particular pound/foot 'story' has been running for many centuries. I feel it's about time you accepted it, 'cos it ain't gonna go away!
(See, I can write 'cos, ain't and gonna', too, if I like!)
(See, I can write 'cos, ain't and gonna', too, if I like!)
Well I asked the question and as far as I am concerned a pound is a pound and more than one pound comes into the realm of pounds.
Reference to slang or a mistake of similar incongruity (as in the foot/feet argument ) comes into the definition of two wrongs not making a right ('innitt??).
Listen to the radio four newsreader named Sarah somethingorother with the Waterford crystal voice and she regularly and for some years, has refered to plural pounds as "pound" even into the current obsession with billions of the blasted things!
Over to you.
Reference to slang or a mistake of similar incongruity (as in the foot/feet argument ) comes into the definition of two wrongs not making a right ('innitt??).
Listen to the radio four newsreader named Sarah somethingorother with the Waterford crystal voice and she regularly and for some years, has refered to plural pounds as "pound" even into the current obsession with billions of the blasted things!
Over to you.
It's the absurd use of the words 'correct' and 'wrong' in discussing language situations such as this that grates on me!
If an Eastender (I wasn't sure if I would be allowed, because of the opening four letters, to write the word I obviously mean!) says to his girl-friend, "Gerrup 'em apples!" is he 'wrong'? Of course not; he has made a perfect communication in a colloquial situation. That, surely, is the purpose of language.
Obviously, there are varieties of language that one would normally avoid in formal situations. At a marriage ceremony, one says, "I do" or "I will" or whatever and not, "Yeah." On the other hand, if a mate asks, "Are you going to the match on Saturday?" you are perfectly free to say "Yeah." In these circumstances, "Yeah" simply isn't wrong!
The British viper was originally called a nadder, but gradually the 'n' was peeled away from the name and tacked onto the 'a', giving 'an adder'. We've been living perfectly happily with that 'mistake' for 700 years...nobody thinks it's 'wrong'. As already pointed out, we've been doing exactly the same for ages when using pound as a plural, so it's not 'wrong' either!
I'll leave it at that.
If an Eastender (I wasn't sure if I would be allowed, because of the opening four letters, to write the word I obviously mean!) says to his girl-friend, "Gerrup 'em apples!" is he 'wrong'? Of course not; he has made a perfect communication in a colloquial situation. That, surely, is the purpose of language.
Obviously, there are varieties of language that one would normally avoid in formal situations. At a marriage ceremony, one says, "I do" or "I will" or whatever and not, "Yeah." On the other hand, if a mate asks, "Are you going to the match on Saturday?" you are perfectly free to say "Yeah." In these circumstances, "Yeah" simply isn't wrong!
The British viper was originally called a nadder, but gradually the 'n' was peeled away from the name and tacked onto the 'a', giving 'an adder'. We've been living perfectly happily with that 'mistake' for 700 years...nobody thinks it's 'wrong'. As already pointed out, we've been doing exactly the same for ages when using pound as a plural, so it's not 'wrong' either!
I'll leave it at that.
Quite right, Quinlad.
But the BBC newsreader who is the subject of this question is not speaking in a colloquial situation. She or he is reading the news to a nationwide (and possibly an international) audience.
In such a situation I maintain thet there is a "right" and a "wrong" method of delivery. The idea of rules in a language is so that everybody using it stands a reasonable chance of understanding what is said or written.
But the BBC newsreader who is the subject of this question is not speaking in a colloquial situation. She or he is reading the news to a nationwide (and possibly an international) audience.
In such a situation I maintain thet there is a "right" and a "wrong" method of delivery. The idea of rules in a language is so that everybody using it stands a reasonable chance of understanding what is said or written.
New Judge,
I take my hat off to you Sir / or Madam (probably because you have expressed my own opinion so concisely.)
I must agree with much of what was expressed by other kind contributors in favour of colloquial usage but as you have quite correctly (IMO) pointed out, the BBC sets the standard worldwide and therefore defines, "right and wrong" for the majority of the world's English speakers, who are then of course free to convert it to their own idiomatic and colloquial use.
Please accept my congratulations and thanks New Judge ,for your most intelligent summation and also the very kind and erudite opinions of other respondents.
I take my hat off to you Sir / or Madam (probably because you have expressed my own opinion so concisely.)
I must agree with much of what was expressed by other kind contributors in favour of colloquial usage but as you have quite correctly (IMO) pointed out, the BBC sets the standard worldwide and therefore defines, "right and wrong" for the majority of the world's English speakers, who are then of course free to convert it to their own idiomatic and colloquial use.
Please accept my congratulations and thanks New Judge ,for your most intelligent summation and also the very kind and erudite opinions of other respondents.
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|