Can "lice" be a collective noun for you?

[Space60]

I was in high school and there was this white stuff floating in the air. One kid suggested it was lice and another kid said "lice doesn't float" rather than saying "lice don't float." suggesting that for them "lice" is a collective noun.

[alice]

"a lice doesn't float" sounds wrong, but I'm not sure if that settles things either way.

[Space60]

"a lice doesn't float" sounds wrong, but I'm not sure if that settles things either way.

Well, yes, that is because "lice" is plural. I have heard "lice doesn't float." (no article) which suggests a collective noun.

[Richard W]

While I can see it developing into a singular like measles has (contra Wiktionary), it hasn't yet for me. However, I am fortunately so unfamiliar with them that louse is almost a book word for me, being backed up by the more familiar woodlouse, a garden creature; and woodlice does not feel at all like a collective to me. On the other hand, headlice does feel iike a disease; it just hasn't made the transition to singular for me. Plurality may be partially preserved for me by the pun of turning one's headlice on when it gets dark.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

While I would say lice don't float, I wouldn't bat an eyelash at lice doesn't float.

[Nortaneous]

no, but I'm not surprised - it seems much more common for people to talk about lice than about a louse

[Travis B.]

I'm not surprised, but at the same time treating lice and words derived therefrom as singular w.r.t. verb agreement still feels very unnatural to me. I still would say lice don't float and find *lice doesn't float to be rather odd.

[TomHChappell]

no, but I'm not surprised - it seems much more common for people to talk about lice than about a louse

When something (or someone) is infested with lice, we say it is lousy; we don’t say it is licy.

And if we want to insult someone we might say they are a louse, and be understood.
Though I think that’s a somewhat old-fashioned insult!

[Travis B.]

no, but I'm not surprised - it seems much more common for people to talk about lice than about a louse

When something (or someone) is infested with lice, we say it is lousy; we don’t say it is licy.

And if we want to insult someone we might say they are a louse, and be understood.
Though I think that’s a somewhat old-fashioned insult!

At least in the English I am familiar with, "lousy" has very little relation to lice, and the condition of having lice is, well, having lice, not being "lousy". And I have never heard "louse" being used as an insult.

[Space60]

no, but I'm not surprised - it seems much more common for people to talk about lice than about a louse

When something (or someone) is infested with lice, we say it is lousy; we don’t say it is licy.

And if we want to insult someone we might say they are a louse, and be understood.
Though I think that’s a somewhat old-fashioned insult!

At least in the English I am familiar with, "lousy" has very little relation to lice, and the condition of having lice is, well, having lice, not being "lousy". And I have never heard "louse" being used as an insult.

"Lousy" originally meant full of lice, however nowadays it most often refers to something being miserable and the historical connection to lice has largely been lost.

[Space60]

As an attributive noun while those are ordinarily in the singular, we use "lice" rather than "louse". We say "lice shampoo", not *"louse shampoo".

[Richard W]

When something (or someone) is infested with lice, we say it is lousy; we don’t say it is licy.

But 'lousy' is normally a dead metaphor.

[WeepingElf]

I don't get the point of this discussion! Isn't lice just the plural of louse? But I am not a native speaker of English and may have missed something

[Raphael]

I don't get the point of this discussion! Isn't lice just the plural of louse? But I am not a native speaker of English and may have missed something

People seem to be arguing about whether the singular or the plural is more commonly used in everyday speech.

[Estav]

I don't get the point of this discussion! Isn't lice just the plural of louse? But I am not a native speaker of English and may have missed something

The proposal in the original post is that, despite being etymologically plural, the form "lice" might be reinterpreted as a grammatically singular mass/collective noun, similar to the evolution of certain other irregular plurals such as stamina, data, algae.

The use of "doesn't" in the overheard sentence "lice doesn't float" is put forth as evidence that some speakers have reinterpreted "lice" this way.

If this change exists at all for me, it certainly hasn't progressed far: I find it natural to use "lice" as a plural, unlike "stamina" or "data" where plural usage sounds marked. I don't use the words lice and louse much anyways, though.

[Space60]

I don't get the point of this discussion! Isn't lice just the plural of louse? But I am not a native speaker of English and may have missed something

The proposal in the original post is that, despite being etymologically plural, the form "lice" might be reinterpreted as a grammatically singular mass/collective noun, similar to the evolution of certain other irregular plurals such as stamina, data, algae.

The use of "doesn't" in the overheard sentence "lice doesn't float" is put forth as evidence that some speakers have reinterpreted "lice" this way.

If this change exists at all for me, it certainly hasn't progressed far: I find it natural to use "lice" as a plural, unlike "stamina" or "data" where plural usage sounds marked. I don't use the words lice and louse much anyways, though.

Well, yes. I rarely ever talk about lice and virtually never say the word "louse".

[Travis B.]

I don't get the point of this discussion! Isn't lice just the plural of louse? But I am not a native speaker of English and may have missed something

The proposal in the original post is that, despite being etymologically plural, the form "lice" might be reinterpreted as a grammatically singular mass/collective noun, similar to the evolution of certain other irregular plurals such as stamina, data, algae.

The use of "doesn't" in the overheard sentence "lice doesn't float" is put forth as evidence that some speakers have reinterpreted "lice" this way.

If this change exists at all for me, it certainly hasn't progressed far: I find it natural to use "lice" as a plural, unlike "stamina" or "data" where plural usage sounds marked. I don't use the words lice and louse much anyways, though.

To me lice is more a plurale tantum than a collective noun, in that it still behaves mostly like a plural noun, just one whose singular is missing in action, considering how infrequently louse is actually used.

[Space60]

I don't get the point of this discussion! Isn't lice just the plural of louse? But I am not a native speaker of English and may have missed something

The proposal in the original post is that, despite being etymologically plural, the form "lice" might be reinterpreted as a grammatically singular mass/collective noun, similar to the evolution of certain other irregular plurals such as stamina, data, algae.

The use of "doesn't" in the overheard sentence "lice doesn't float" is put forth as evidence that some speakers have reinterpreted "lice" this way.

If this change exists at all for me, it certainly hasn't progressed far: I find it natural to use "lice" as a plural, unlike "stamina" or "data" where plural usage sounds marked. I don't use the words lice and louse much anyways, though.

To me lice is more a plurale tantum than a collective noun, in that it still behaves mostly like a plural noun, just one whose singular is missing in action, considering how infrequently louse is actually used.

Would the noun "police" be a plurale tantrum? It takes plural agreement and it is never used in the singular. For the singular, "police officer", "policeman", or "cop" are used.

[Travis B.]

To me lice is more a plurale tantum than a collective noun, in that it still behaves mostly like a plural noun, just one whose singular is missing in action, considering how infrequently louse is actually used.

Would the noun "police" be a plurale tantrum? It takes plural agreement and it is never used in the singular. For the singular, "police officer", "policeman", or "cop" are used.

"Police" does seem like one.