Plural of "Equipment" is...?

It's news to me too.

I've never used equipment in the plural form, and several sporting equipments sounds horrible.
I think a variety of equipment probably best conveys the idea of plural in this case.

Any other suggestions?

same here. equipments sounds wrong.

We have a lot of sporting equipment.

We have sporting equipment for all needs.

We have all kinds of sporting equipment.

I'm pretty sure equipments is wrong. Sorry, I don't think there's a choice but to go with "pieces of sporting equipment," or, "several different types of sporting equipment." Good luck just the same

I agree, equipment never has an 's' , but maybe in some British dialects???I'm from Yorkshire and have never heard 'equipments'.

'Equipments' is the default plural in Filipino English. I was appalled when I first noticed it here, but I started thinking it was old-fashioned US English (as much of Filipino English is...). 'Fruits', 'stuffs' and 'cereals' are also used. (As in, 'Would you like some cereals?')

My thinking is that much older English did do this at one stage, and phased out of common usage during the 60s. I have read these plurals in older writing before.

I used to try and explain 'countable' and 'non-countable', but I'm so used to it these days, I'm not even sure how that works anymore...

I hear "fruits" a lot. Some dictionaries for 'plural of fruit' have both 'fruit' and 'fruits', as equally used forms

That's a bit different though. Fruits can be used in the same way as eg wines or cheeses to mean types of - as in this recipe for Barbecued Fruits

Compare : I know some Italian wines which are just as high quality as similar French wines.

And although I was all set to say that equipment couldn't be used like this, or in any other plural sense, googling it I've just found :

Himech Equipments is a leader in the design of oilfield equipment ...
Anti climb guards ltd (Vandgard) provides rotating anti climb equipments in UK ( United Kingdom) for industrial (commercial) as well as domestic premises.
Artillery Equipments of the Napoleonic Wars

All from UK sites. So there you go ...

incredible. susan, how do you explain it?

Beatrix wrote:incredible. susan, how do you explain it?

I'd explain it by saying 'use' is the rule. Grammar is an attempt to find the patterns of a language and explain it. Grammar isn't a rule that language obeys. So, if we see such usage you can define it as OK (descriptive) or shun such usage (prescriptivist), but it's not going to stop the change.

200,000 friends of mine and me think you should just tell them it's OK.

Just tell them that some people say it that way, and some people don't. So, it's not a big deal. 'Equipments' is used by some and it's understandable. I'd say let it fly.

I agree 100% with Mark. That's why I always go to Google or a concordancer before I discuss language. We need to know how people are using language - which may change not only from region to region but also from year to year. I recently picked up Chomsky's Aspects and reread it. That's only from 1965 but there were one or two phrases that sounded absolutely archaic to me. Or think of listening to news reports from the 40s and 50s and compare them with current reports. There's a huge difference.

My surprise over equipments was not that I should argue that it shouldn't be used countably, but that I really didn't think it was. But yet again, Google proved me wrong ....

yes, I agree with you that we shouldn't insist on the word's being used in only one way. I also thought that nobody uses 'equipments'

Ya i agree that equipments is wrong.We always use equipment.

But guys you are misunderstanding something ... why do we use waters, seas, monies, ...?

Actually before I give the explanation, I must also admit that equipments does not sound so good, but I suppose it could be used.

Here is an explaination ...

For instance lets look at the word water. How can water become plural?

Firstly, the subject "water" cannot, but if we look at water in the context of seas, oceans, rivers, lakes, and we say that each one is water. Then they form a collective that cannot be merged together and will always remain separate and individual items. Therefore "I travel many waters to find my true love"

However there are some things that don't really work, for instance "sheep" it does not matter what type of sheep it is, we can form a merged collective, therefore they will always be sheep and not sheeps.

But English is alive and changes. English has differences based upon area, country, lifestyle and class (yuk I hate to admit it), therefore we should always be open to differences.

Rob

Given that English is 'alive' and changes, in the context of an English Language classroom where grammar is taught, how much flexibility do we give to adding an "s" to collective nouns? If regional usage is the norm, is there such thing as "standard English" or am I correct grammatically, if I say, "She don't got nothing with her"?

There are naturally bridges that must not be crossed!

By the way the line in my post "can form a merged collective" should be "can't"

Changes in the language grammar against a "norm" or what could be described as "grammatically correct", can come in many forms. These forms can be specific to an industry, area, culture or class.

The above forms can be further grouped into "perception" and by perception I mean how one may perceive the person using the language.

In the above, certain incorrect grammatical forms for instance American English; "did you do it yet?" are internationally accepted and taught in the classroom however, some forms such as your example; "She don't got nothing with her" are not!

One may ask why?

My advice in the classroom is to use your intellect and this will tell you what is suitable and what is not.

In respect to ....

"how much flexibility do we give to adding an "s" to collective nouns?"

Either you know it is ok, or you don't. Teachers come in many forms and with differing levels of "let's say" international, business and industry exposure. This is not a classification of whether a teacher is good or not, rather one of "how far" can that teacher expand their teaching in an acceptable way. For instance; there are not many teachers that understand "basic English" ...... <smile> or to use its more international term "simplified English", but this does not mean they are not a good teachers.

All teachers should not rest on their laurels as English is alive and changing; so is international perception and use. The expansion of a teacher's exposure allows them to expand their teaching and also makes them more suitable for certain training objectives e.g. It is better to teach American English to people working with Americans than British English; even though British English would well suffice.

rob