# Singular or Plural



## The Backward OX (Jun 28, 2010)

Is 'livestock' singular or plural?


----------



## Killer Croc (Jun 28, 2010)

I think it's both...


----------



## qwertyman (Jun 28, 2010)

Do you have a livestock?

Yup, sheeps and meeces.


----------



## Sam (Jun 28, 2010)

Generally, it's plural, as you would never call a single animal "livestock".


----------



## Killer Croc (Jun 28, 2010)

Sam, I would have thought the same thing, but...

See this link:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Livestock

And here, read the second definition:  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/livestock


----------



## Sam (Jun 28, 2010)

The word may be treated as singular or plural, as those links show, but it generally infers the presence of more than one animal.


----------



## garza (Jun 28, 2010)

Oxford gives the relevant definition of 'stock' as (4)a. 'farm animals', plural. (9th Concise p1370)


----------



## ppsage (Jun 28, 2010)

But for purposes of conjegation? "...so impoverished his livestock consit(s) in a single brutish ox, so old he refuses the harness, by lying stubbornly on a Posture-pedic stuffed with Yankee currency." I think as a subject it requires a singular verb. Doesn't it indicate a single catagory, numerically indeterminate? As pair or couple are singular expressions of a deternimate and plural set?


----------



## Killer Croc (Jun 28, 2010)

Sam W said:


> The word may be treated as singular or plural, as those links show, but it generally infers the presence of more than one animal.


 
You're right, I think despite the fact that it may technically be implemented in a singular form it would be both awkward and probably incorrect in most instances, so it would be best to generally treat it as plural like you said.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 28, 2010)

English has a lovely third class of nouns called "mass nouns" of which "livestock" is a member. They generally involve more than one object being refered to. They tend to take singular verbs.

"Water _is_ blue."
"Livestock _is_ expensive."


----------



## alanmt (Jun 28, 2010)

Plural.  

Although the answer to the question "Do you have livestock?" may be "Yes, I have a cow", the word itself is only used by ranchers hereabouts to describe multiple animals.  And since the truest form of the English language is spoken here where I live, you may rely upon my anecdotal evidence completely and conclusively.


----------



## ppsage (Jun 28, 2010)

alanmt said:


> Plural.
> 
> Although the answer to the question "Do you have livestock?" may be "Yes, I have a cow", the word itself is only used by ranchers hereabouts to describe multiple animals. And since the truest form of the English language is spoken here where I live, you may rely upon my anecdotal evidence completely and conclusively.


 
So you would say livestock are an important component of agriculture in Montana? Maybe. But I'm inclined to say the livestock my Ma owns is important in her longevity.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 28, 2010)

"Livestock is an important component of agriculture in Montana."


----------



## Killer Croc (Jun 28, 2010)

@ppsage: It refers to multiple objects (in this case animals), but if you look in the dictionary is says that it can use a singular or plural verb.


----------



## Sam (Jun 28, 2010)

I've been farming for over twenty years and I've never heard anyone refer to one animal as "livestock". That's why I said it's generally treated as a plural.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jun 28, 2010)

Sam, Sam, Sam.

Although pp appears to be the only one who may have rumbled the true cause of the thread, I cannot allow your remark to go unremarked. You're all of...what? 25? And farming for over twenty years? I thought the child labour laws had been repealed. Maybe not in Ireland?


----------



## ppsage (Jun 28, 2010)

So OX, if you're looking to use the noun livestock as the subject of a sentence, conjegate the verb as singular and you'll probably be safe, however its meaning in terms of number is _generally considered._ In most instances using a plural verb form sounds just wrong and in the ones where it sounds ambiguous, it's probably still wrong. Not totally sure it's universally so entertaining to have threads where people are expected to _tumble _(I mean rumble) to the intent, maybe it's a gomber thing. You hooked me this time. pp

Pretty sure Ilasir's onto it (what else, really?) as well and more authoritatively, if less playfully.


----------



## Sam (Jun 28, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> Sam, Sam, Sam.
> 
> Although pp appears to be the only one who may have rumbled the true cause of the thread, I cannot allow your remark to go unremarked. You're all of...what? 25? And farming for over twenty years? I thought the child labour laws had been repealed. Maybe not in Ireland?



OX, OX, OX. 

I'm twenty-eight, and I've been working on a farm with my father since I was old enough to know what a farm was. I learned how to drive a tractor before I learned how to ride a bicycle. When I should have been running around and making a nuisance of myself, I was learning how to milk cows. When you live on a farm, you don't get the luxury of saying "no".


----------



## garza (Jun 28, 2010)

If you look in a _proper_ dictionary you will find that it's usually plural. 'Livestock are...' is correct.
See Oxford Concise ninth edition page 797.


----------



## ppsage (Jun 28, 2010)

Livestock march to different drummers.
Livestock fetches a good price.

I won't be able to consult Oxford today (though I've copied the reference) but I wonder how it addresses the question of the uncountable noun acting as a unit versus as individuals? Or is livestock an exception to normal practice? Or not considered an uncountable noun?


----------



## garza (Jun 29, 2010)

ppsage - There is a good discussion of collective nouns in Fowler. I presently use the third edition edited by Burchfield. Information on whether collective nouns are to be treated as singular or plural is on pp 157-158.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 29, 2010)

It's unfortunate that "livestock" is a mass noun and not collective.


----------



## garza (Jun 30, 2010)

Ilasir Maroa - For the farmer, livestock is not a mass noun. The farmer knows exactly how many cattle, sheep, swine, and chickens he has, and that makes livestock a collective, not a mass, noun. If it were a mass noun this entire discussion about singular or plural would be moot because the mass noun is always treated as singular. See third ed. Fowler p. 482. Also see the citation above.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jun 30, 2010)

[ot] 





> Is toilet paper a mass noun?


 [/ot]


----------



## garza (Jun 30, 2010)

The Backward Ox - It is unless you count and individually identify each sheet on the roll, in which case it becomes collective and you become a candidate for a change in meds.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 30, 2010)

garza said:


> Ilasir Maroa - For the farmer, livestock is not a mass noun. The farmer knows exactly how many cattle, sheep, swine, and chickens he has, and that makes livestock a collective, not a mass, noun. If it were a mass noun this entire discussion about singular or plural would be moot because the mass noun is always treated as singular. See third ed. Fowler p. 482. Also see the citation above.



Oh, so I can say "the silverware are" because I know I have six knives, 23 forks, and 44 sppons?  Collective knowns can take the plural.  "Two herds of cattle".  Mass nouns can not.  You cannot have "two livestocks".  It's the definition of the category.


----------



## garza (Jun 30, 2010)

Ilasir Maroa - Knowing how many is what separates the collective noun from the mass noun. When the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries says 'Livestock faces a bright future with the opening of the Mexican market' he is speaking of an indeterminate number of animals treated as a unit. When I visit the Figuroa  farm in La Gracia Oscar might say something like 'My livestock are doing well. I have two new calves, and I have 42 pigs ready to go to market.' He thinks of his animals as individual units, not as a single mass. 

Your silverware can be a mass noun if you have a crate full with no idea of how many or of what kind might be in there. It's an indeterminate mass of silverware to be treated as a unit. As soon as you count it, classify it, recognise it as a collection of individual items, then you have a collective noun.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 30, 2010)

Garza, as I don't have a copy of either of the books you cited on-hand, I won't argue that you can't say "the livestock are", but "a herd of cattle" is just as indeterminate as "livestock", and yet it is still a collective noun. "collective" and "mass" nouns refer to distinct categories of nouns in a language with particular behaviors, they are not adjectives which may be applied to any noun depending on the circumstances.

Also, you seem to be operating under a misapprehension.  A collective noun is a noun that follows the pattern "an X of Y".  It is generally indeterminate unless otherwise specified: "An X of ninety Y..." That's it.  "A glory of unicorns", "a marmalade of ponies", "a murder of corws".  Those are examples of collective nouns.  In order to fit the template "the X _are_ Y", you must make these nouns plural.  "The herds (of cattle) are stampeding."  You cannot say "The herd (of cattle) are stampeding."  You must in that case say "The herd is" or "The cattle are".  Even if you could reclassify "livestock" as a collective noun when you've know the number of individual animals involved, you could never say "The livestock are" because you would need the pattern "The livestock of poines", in which case it would _still_ be "is".


----------



## The Backward OX (Jun 30, 2010)

My cutlery are all stainless steel.


----------



## Baron (Jun 30, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> My cutlery are all stainless steel.


 
For scraping the barrel?


----------



## garza (Jun 30, 2010)

Okay. Forget it.

No, don't forget it, but this is my last post on this subject.

A good part of my living these days is writing about agriculture. I not only know what the books say about collective and mass categories of nouns -- yes I understand that the terms are not adjectives, my degrees are old but not canceled -- I know the common usage and the examples I gave are not made up but are direct quotes of real people (The Hon. Rene Montero, Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and Oscar Figuroa, Farmer of the Year 2009) and  represent current good usage. 

Nouns can be classified according to circumstance, though in truth what we are classifying is not the word but what the word represents. The word can represent an amorphous mass of uncounted animals or a specific set of individually identified animals. So it is either positively singular or most likely plural. 

The discussion is not about 'herd' but about 'livestock'.

 All this business about 'flutters of butterflies' or whatever is just so much artsy twaddle and has nothing whatever to do with the real world, which is the world I live in and the world I have written about every day for the past 56 years.


----------



## ppsage (Jun 30, 2010)

A partial list regarding livestock:

Livestock (also cattle) refers to
Livestock generally are raised 
livestock have changed 
smaller livestock was called
‘Livestock’ are defined
Livestock produce a range
livestock were the only 
Livestock are generally kept 
Other livestock are farmed 
many livestock are herd 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock

In the two instances above where the verb form is singular, the term livestock is used as one category among others. Otherwise when the individuals each do the group action--each is raised or each produces--the verb is plural. Which will no doubt be overwhelmingly the case. I now have come to believe that, with rare exceptions, livestock will take a plural verb form. This is contrary to my initial assertion, and my new understanding is entirely owed to impetus from this thread. For which I'm grateful. Can't figure why I took so long finding for myself the simple expedient surveying the term in context. A larger survey was anticipated but this first is for me completely conclusive. 

And OX, I apologize if my poor advice becomes the straw which will break the editorial back. 

In abject humility, pp.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jun 30, 2010)

garza said:


> this is my last post on this subject.


rofl


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 30, 2010)

garza said:


> Okay. Forget it.
> 
> No, don't forget it, but this is my last post on this subject.
> 
> ...


 

It has everything to do with the real world, garza.

I think the idea that a piece is going to be rejected over the use of "livestock are" has very little to do with the real world, however, so NTO should stop worrying about it and write the thing.  And of course, ppsage has provided a lovely list of examples supporting the usage in question, so I think NTO is on safe ground anyway, as a practical matter.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 5, 2010)

> That's it.  "A glory of unicorns", "a marmalade of ponies", "a murder of corws".  Those are examples of collective nouns.


Simple typo a murder of crows, but I thought a blessing of unicorns, I suppose being mythical they can have multiple collective nouns. A charm of goldfinches is a popular example.


----------

