The Apostrophe Test.

[rob_1993]

I recently did the Apostrophe test and on receiving my results, I was presented with this:

Question #: 2: The peoples of the world must unite. This is correct.
User's answer: False
Correct answer: True
Additional Notes:

But, "people" is construed as both singular and plural, is it not?

 

[philo2009]

The sentence in question is grammatically correct as it stands, and would be equally so if 'people' were substituted for 'peoples'.

I trust that answers your question.

 

[kfredson]

I recently did the Apostrophe test and on receiving my results, I was presented with this:

Question #: 2: The peoples of the world must unite. This is correct.
User's answer: False
Correct answer: True
Additional Notes:

But, "people" is construed as both singular and plural, is it not?

When you say "peoples" you are referring to the various kinds of people who live on the earth: the Norwegian people, the German people, the Chinese people, etc. Combine them and you get "peoples."

 

[rob_1993]

Thank you for responding.

So peoples is grammatically correct. However, what's the point in using peoples instead of people; what emphasis does it add?

Whilst reading articles in both The Times and The Independent (both of which I consider to be perfectly grammatically correct) I have seen: "the peoples of Australia"; "the people of the world"; "the people of England".

People & peoples seem to be used synonymously, is there any difference between them? Or perhaps a specific case where only one can be used?

 

[Linguist__]

Thank you for responding.

So peoples is grammatically correct. However, what's the point in using peoples instead of people; what emphasis does it add?

Whilst reading articles in both The Times and The Independent (both of which I consider to be perfectly grammatically correct) I have seen: "the peoples of Australia"; "the people of the world"; "the people of England".

People & peoples seem to be used synonymously, is there any difference between them? Or perhaps a specific case where only one can be used?

(Not a teacher)

I did a little searching on the internet, and it would seem that when talking about communities of people who share a common culture/history etc 'peoples' is more likely to be used. If you use 'people', it seems that you use it in a singular way - "This people have many useful artifacts to determine their history".

 

[TheParser]

Thank you for responding.

So peoples is grammatically correct. However, what's the point in using peoples instead of people; what emphasis does it add?

Whilst reading articles in both The Times and The Independent (both of which I consider to be perfectly grammatically correct) I have seen: "the peoples of Australia"; "the people of the world"; "the people of England".

People & peoples seem to be used synonymously, is there any difference between them? Or perhaps a specific case where only one can be used?

***NOT A TEACHER***There does seem to be a difference between the two words: (1) The peoples of Australia = all the different ethnic groups of that continent (I know next to nothing about Australia, but I understand that before the Europeans' arrival, there were various groups of people who had different languages, etc.). (2) "The people of the world" = the 7,000,000,000 human beings on Earth.