Todd Moody wrote: >I think we use the simple plural in those cases where the magnitude is >implied by context. For example, I might say to a fisherman, "There are >fish in this stream." I don't want to say there is *a* fish in the stream, >but I'm also not in a position to say much about how many fish there are. >In context, the implied magnitude is "enough to be interesting to a >fisherman." > >Another example: "I didn't pick any blueberries because of the bees." >Somebody *might* ask me how many bees, or they might simply understand that >there were enough to deter me from picking blueberries. > >If I say, "Some kids are hanging around in front of the house", the word >"some" gives no idea of the magnitude, except that it's more than one. In >context, I'm probably talking about a small group, because if there were >hundreds out there, "Some kids are hanging around in front of the house", >though strictly true, would be misleading. That's because it would be an >unexpectedly large number. > >So, I guess I'd say that the generic "more than one" plural is useful in >contexts where there is a shared understanding or expectation of >magnitude, and where a more precise designation isn't necessary. I agree.