Re: Missing Singulars

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@> wrote:

<snip>

> I would still say
> based on what I saw in this search and my general memory that it is
> more natural in English to use "police" as a non-count noun rather
> than a count noun, so without numerals or quantity determinants. As
> for "cattle", I concede that large numbers like "3000 cattle" are used
> before it, but this is a sort of mass number and "10 cattle", ten
> individuals, I think still sounds like an unnatural combination of
> words. I suppose it might depend on whether one is accounting one's
> assets or one is indicating animals in view.

Do you have any textbooks teaching against 'ten police' or 'ten
cattle'? The former certainly seems to be journalese, as Piotr
remarked earlier, and indeed 'many police' is also journalese.

Contrariwise, whereas 'five head of cattle' and 'five cattle' seem
evenly balanced, 'many cattle' (103,000 raw Google hits 103,000, most
as complete numeric contexts) is much commoner (about 8 times) than
'many head of cattle' (7,230 raw Google hits). I presume that this is
because old counts of cattle are preserved better than old questions
and general statements, as <cattle> has narrowed from 'property' to
'bovines'.

Richard.