"people" VS "persons"

Guest   Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:55 am GMT
What is the difference?
Guest   Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:08 am GMT
"persons" is used more in legal speak. "people" is the more generally used word. Also, "people" is often used to refer to the populace (as in "the people"), while "persons" can't be used that way.
Pos   Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:39 am GMT
<<"persons" is used more in legal speak. "people" is the more generally used word. >>

How about in:

- Guide to the Literature of Art History, intended for "persons doing serious research in the field of art history".

- Everything he writes is Jewish in the sense that everything he writes is conscious of the Jewish faith, if that can be said without relinquishing the thought that there are such persons as unbelieving Jews.

-but as each generation of students arrives more defiantly or hopelessly monoglot, as a whole new discipline (called "Comparative Literature") has come into being to cater for those exceptional persons who can read more languages than one

- Convalescents can be accompanied by their spouse who can also benefit from the rest and relaxation provided. The House can accommodate up to 22 persons and offers a very high standard of comfort. Richard Peck House has earned a reputation as one of the finest convalescent homes in the country and those who stay there return home rested and restored to good health.
Miguel   Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:48 pm GMT
"persons" is not corret.

one person two people....
Travis   Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:18 pm GMT
"Persons" are multiple individual people, whereas "people" is just a group of multiple people without regard to particular individuals or even just a indefinite, generalized person (as the plural is very commonly used in English to refer to things which are rather indefinite with respect to number and without regard to any particular individual things).
Guest   Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:47 pm GMT
Pos: "How about in: ..."

"Persons" is used in formal writing, but isn't common in everyday conversation.
Guest   Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:38 pm GMT
My English teacher said that "people" is incorrect when there's a preceeding numeral, that there using "persons" is correct.
Travis   Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:41 pm GMT
>>My English teacher said that "people" is incorrect when there's a preceeding numeral, that there using "persons" is correct.<<

And your English teacher is completely wrong. The normal, everyday usage would be to use "people", as one generally does not use "persons" in English outside of formal and, in particular, legalistic contexts or in specific cases that one is trying to emphasizing that one is speaking about individual people rather generalized groups of people (which really does not appear that often outside legalistic contexts).
Guest   Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:05 pm GMT
<<And your English teacher is completely wrong. The normal, everyday usage would be to use "people", as one generally does not use "persons" in English outside of formal and, in particular, legalistic contexts or in specific cases that one is trying to emphasizing that one is speaking about individual people rather generalized groups of people (which really does not appear that often outside legalistic contexts).>>

She said that saying "four people" was incorrect, it should be "four persons", however saying "people were running everywhere" rather than *"persons were running everywhere" was correct, because there was no preceeding number. She however also said other odd things like "It has to be me" should be "it has to be I" because of the copula.
furrykef   Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:09 pm GMT
I agree with Travis. "Two persons" is completely obsolete English except in formal contexts. That *used* to be the rule, but there's no sense in keeping it now. Nobody says it that way anymore.

- Kef
Travis   Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:16 pm GMT
>>She however also said other odd things like "It has to be me" should be "it has to be I" because of the copula.<<

Yeah, this is another place where she is very wrong. In normal spoken English today that is most definitely "it has to be me", with "it has to be I" coming off as extremely formal and almost archaic. Even in most *formal* speech one would still use "it has to me" today.

(And honestly, saying "it has to be I" will make one seriously sound like a pompous ass - really...)
Guest   Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:44 pm GMT
I've heard "person or persons unknown" in police news.