Singular or Plural Noun?

Categories

As you are probably aware, our contemporary English content is now available through Lexico.com (https://www.lexico.com/en), and our old English dictionary site no longer exists.

As a result of this, this forum is now closed.

The English dictionary community team would like the opportunity to say a huge thanks to all of you who participated by posting questions and helping other community members.
We hope this forum was useful, and that you enjoyed being a part of it.

If you would like to get in touch with any OED-related queries, please write to
[email protected]

And if you would like to contribute suggestions to the OED, please do so by visiting: https://public.oed.com/contribute-to-the-oed/

Thank you very much indeed, and good bye!
The community team

Singular or Plural Noun?

Mark_SMark_S ✭
edited February 2018 in Grammar, punctuation, and usage

Hi,

There's a line in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire that reads: 'At long last, the golden plates returned to their original spotless state'. However, shouldn't the word 'state' be pluralised?

Thanks

Mark

· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • favilla151favilla151 ✭
    edited February 2018

    Hi Mark,

    well, not necessarily in my opinion. Using the singular, the author is implying a "shared" original spotless state of the plates, so to speak.

    @Mark_S

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • DavidCrosbieDavidCrosbie ✭✭✭

    Mark. I'd go further than favilla, who says 'Not necessarily' I'd say 'Necessarily not'.

    'At long last, the golden plates returned to their original spotless states'.

    implies (to me, at any rate) that the plates had different states of spotlessness.

    But spotless is absolute. Any spotless thing is spotless in the same way as any other spotless thing.

    OK, we might imaging a fantasy world with different types of spotlessness. But the fantasy world of Harry Potter is the just our world with added magic. Potterworld unmagic objects like gold plates are just like our gold plates.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Mark_SMark_S ✭
    edited February 2018

    @DavidCrosbie said:
    Mark. I'd go further than favilla, who says 'Not necessarily' I'd say 'Necessarily not'.

    'At long last, the golden plates returned to their original spotless states'.

    implies (to me, at any rate) that the plates had different states of spotlessness.

    But spotless is absolute. Any spotless thing is spotless in the same way as any other spotless thing.

    OK, we might imaging a fantasy world with different types of spotlessness. But the fantasy world of Harry Potter is the just our world with added magic. Potterworld unmagic objects like gold plates are just like our gold plates.

    Thanks for your response, David.

    In that case, if you were to remove the word 'spotless', would you pluralise the word 'state'? Or would that be contingent upon whether the golden plates were all returning to the same state or varying states, as mentioned by @favilla151 ?

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • DavidCrosbieDavidCrosbie ✭✭✭

    Mark, I would still use singular state here because the golden plates comprise a single set and the change to spotlessness is a single instantaneous event.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • DavidCrosbieDavidCrosbie ✭✭✭

    Mark, when a shared condition is represented as individual, the result can be deliberately humorous. Consider Tom Lehrer's

    You will all go directly to your respective Valhallas.
    Go directly, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Mark_SMark_S ✭

    Many thanks for your help @DavidCrosbie , it makes sense now.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.