Correct if needed

Question

Hi,Here, where I live, we deal with those kind of incidents almost EVERYDAY.  As Tom said they always come in groups almost never alone.   If they're alone they don't even dare to do a thing.  Proves what kind of cowards they are!Thanks

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

Here where I live, we deal with those kinds of incidents almost EVERY DAY. As Tom said, they always come in groups, and almost never alone. If they're alone, they don't dare to do such a thing, which proves what cowards they are!

Cool Breeze · Answer

Mister MicawberHere where I live, we deal with those kinds of incidents almost EVERY DAY.

Kind has two plurals, the old unchanged kind and the newer kinds. The original plural can still be used in the expressions these/those kind of:

" —Usage. The phrase THESE (or THOSE) KIND OF, followed by a plural noun (these kind of flowers; those kind of shoes) is frequently condemned as ungrammatical because it is said to combine a plural demonstrative (these; those) with a singular noun, KIND. Historically, KIND is an unchanged or unmarked plural noun like deer, folk, sheep, and swine, and the construction THESE KIND OF is an old one, occurring in the writings of Shakespeare, Swift, Jane Austen, and, in modern times, Jimmy Carter and Winston Churchill. KIND has also developed the plural KINDS, evidently because of the feeling that the old pattern was incorrect. THESE KIND OF nevertheless persists in use, esp. in less formal speech and writing. In edited, more formal prose, THIS KIND OF and THESE KINDS OF are more common. SORT OF has been influenced by the use of KIND as an unchanged plural: these sort of books. This construction too is often considered incorrect and appears mainly in less formal speech and writing.
KIND (or SORT) OF as an adverbial modifier meaning “somewhat” occurs in informal speech and writing: Sales have been kind (or sort) of slow these last few weeks."
- Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary

"The Unchanged Plural

Many substantives are unchanged in the plural, either always or in certain employments.

---

In the familiart these kind of tools, those sort of speeches, we may look upon kind and sort as unchanged plurals; but there is a tendency to treat kind of and sort of as inseparable units; cp. the vulgar kind of before a verb: 'I kind of admire her.' In literary style books of that kind is preferred to those kind of books.

In that kind of thing we have a survival of the old unchanged plural, thing."
- Otto Jespersen, Essentials of English Grammar

This usage is one of countless similar controversial points of grammar. The following quote is from the Collins Concise Dictionary:

"The mixture of plural and singular constructions, although often used informally with kind and sort, should be avoided in serious writing: children enjoy those kinds (not those kind) of stories; these sorts of (not these sort) of distinctions are becoming blurred."

There is disagreement. I am inclined to think that those who compiled the Collins Dictionary may have been born about the same year Churchill died (1965)

and thus were unaware of what he said and wrote. If the pluralkind is totally rejected, the same logic could be applied to all unchanged plurals that have been used for ages. The choice is yours; I am a traditionalist and therefore I like old plurals.

CB

Mister Micawber · Answer

Linguistically interesting, but practical overkill, CB. I didn't say that 'kind' is 'wrong'. However, 'kinds' remains stylistically better with the plural 'those...incidents', which was my point. I am not sure what your point in posting is.

Cool Breeze · Answer

Mister MicawberHere where I live, we deal with those kinds of incidents almost EVERY DAY.

The original poster's sentence was: "Here, where I live, we deal with those kind of incidents almost EVERYDAY."

Sorry, MrM. I got the impression you considered kind wrong because you had changed it to kinds. I bet quite a few others did as well.

CB

Correct if needed

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions