There is currently a headline in the nation reading:
[SIZE=6]More prominent persons in Kenya turning to cremation[/SIZE]
I don’t know but I think the word ‘persons’ to mean ‘people’ cannot be used in this context. Normally, I find that it is used in other contexts, such as:
"Persons with disability…
or in law
“…with other persons not in court”
In other words, the use of the word needs to be qualified. Am I wrong or right?
Nisaidieni hapa…
Will “Persons of prominence without disability and who are not needed in court” work?
i don’t think the context is right.
When you refer to the people of a single ethnic group or nationality, always use the word people.
and when do you use persons?
It sounds correct to me, replace persons with individuals and it sounds better…
Let me know.
When you are telling someone about someone who he knows.
Hio ni past osungu, it’s legalese. There are different kinds of persons in “the eyes of the law” natural, artificial, juridical et al. Like in court a corporation is a person, your legal name in ALL CAPS in commerce is also treated as a person different from you ‘the’ living flesh and blood.
There’s a dictionary called Black’s Law Dictionary. Very interesting read
Am getting lost more, @Brikicho Bantureh and @gashwin . Are you agreeing with me that the usage here is wrong?
I can’t think why the sub who came up with the headline decided to use persons (7 letters) instead of people (six letters).
The word is used right. Persons of interest.
legal context mostly
yeah it is wrong
The word needs to be quantified. Just like when you are using the word ‘monies’.
People is used to generalize while persons is more specific ergo why it is qualified in the sentence using ‘prominent’.
It’s called the fictitious conveyance of language. I’d call it the biggest fraud that has ever existed…
Lakini you are dealing with a situation where (the true) meaning of words is lost in the translation of sound… That’s how all conflicts start