Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Wiktionary:Requests for verification - kept[edit]

Kept. See archived discussion of October 2008. 00:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RFV discussion[edit]

RFC discussion[edit]

TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from the page WT:RFC.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.


Etymology needs work, probably trimming. —RuakhTALK 16:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to incorporate as much of the word-evolution information as possible into the etymology: but that wasn't much, because most of the 'languages' aren't considered separate by our (and ISO) standards, and the spellings differed from ones other reference materials agreed upon, too. But I added another sense to the English ("I'll have my people get back to you" - although now I question whether or not this belongs at *?my people/one's people insead or not), and RFVed the French section. — Beobach972 17:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I think the additional sense is fine where you put it; my people would be too specific (you can say "I'll have my people call your people"), and one's people might be over-thinking it. (We need the placeholder when it's in the middle of an expression, like in eat one's heart out, but otherwise I think it might be too much work for a nebulous distinction.) —RuakhTALK 22:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that definitions 5 is a bit iffy, maybe a more specific form of #2. I know I would never use people that way Alázhlis (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Tea Room discussion[edit]

A thread archived at Talk:race also discussed this word. - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested to know if there needs to be any modification of this definition on the basis of when, or if the term became or originated as being exclusively used to denote human beings. It might seem a bit new agey to suggest that the word can be used to apply to non humans but for the fact that scientists have used the terms it originated from: "population" and "populous" interchangeably with any variety of species for many ages. Does anyone have any idea of how long the original words it derives from have been used in reference to non-humans and has that had any effect on the etymological history or modern usage/definition of this word "people"? I'm fairly certain it could easily be confirmed that the word people has been used even in reference to non human population groups in both modern and historic times, though primarily in fiction, probably even going back as far as some ancient greek mythological works. 17:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You are jumping to wrong conclusions. people does not originate from population or populous. They are related, but they were already different words when they entered the English language. While population may be used of nonhumans, people is only for humans. —Stephen (Talk) 17:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


Both quotations for the second sense ("Persons forming or belonging to a particular group") seem to very clearly belong to the first sense ("plural of person"). Mayhap some new, more fitting quotations can be found. Dylanvt (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; I have moved them to the first sense. Searching for "a people" or "native peoples" should find good citations for the second sense. Equinox 19:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)