There seems to be a change of usage in progress whereby 'goods' is being 
replaced by 'good'.

SOED p. 1125 gives:
3 (property and possessions) Now only in pl.
4 In pl. (commodities etc).

The use of 'now only' in definition 3 suggests earlier use of the singular?

The following is from BBC News:
"As such, healthcare in Britain is considered a social right rather than a 
consumer good or something to be 'earned'."

In this instance, and in several others heard in recent times, the singular 
'good' is used.

Does anyone have any ideas on why this may be happening?
I have checked with the OED on-line and even the draft additions for 2007 do not 
suggest using the singular in this way.


-- 
Blue Sow

In article <46d5a7c8$0$11450$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>,
Blue Sow   wrote:
> There seems to be a change of usage in progress whereby 'goods' is being 
> replaced by 'good'.
> 
> SOED p. 1125 gives:
> 3 (property and possessions) Now only in pl.
> 4 In pl. (commodities etc).
> 
> The use of 'now only' in definition 3 suggests earlier use of the singular?
> 
> The following is from BBC News:
> "As such, healthcare in Britain is considered a social right rather than a 
> consumer good or something to be 'earned'."
> 
> In this instance, and in several others heard in recent times, the singular 
> 'good' is used.

I can't answer your question, but healthcare is services rather than goods,
isn't it?

"I'll have three healthcares, please!"

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

Blue Sow wrote:
> There seems to be a change of usage in progress whereby 'goods' is
> being replaced by 'good'.
>
> SOED p. 1125 gives:
> 3 (property and possessions) Now only in pl.
> 4 In pl. (commodities etc).
>
> The use of 'now only' in definition 3 suggests earlier use of the
> singular?
> The following is from BBC News:
> "As such, healthcare in Britain is considered a social right rather
> than a consumer good or something to be 'earned'."
>
> In this instance, and in several others heard in recent times, the
> singular 'good' is used.
>
> Does anyone have any ideas on why this may be happening?
> I have checked with the OED on-line and even the draft additions for
> 2007 do not suggest using the singular in this way.

While I don't like 'good' it is sure that if there is a plural there is 
a singular, so good is acceptable? genrally though, as you've seen, it 
is 'goods' and one adjust the rest of the phrase to suit rather than 
using 'good'. If I needed the singular I would use another word, 
product, material etc.

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:08:33 +0000 (UTC), tony@softins.clara.co.uk
(Tony Mountifield) wrote:

>In article <46d5a7c8$0$11450$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>,
>Blue Sow   wrote:
>> There seems to be a change of usage in progress whereby 'goods' is being 
>> replaced by 'good'.
>> 
>> SOED p. 1125 gives:
>> 3 (property and possessions) Now only in pl.
>> 4 In pl. (commodities etc).
>> 
>> The use of 'now only' in definition 3 suggests earlier use of the singular?
>> 
>> The following is from BBC News:
>> "As such, healthcare in Britain is considered a social right rather than a 
>> consumer good or something to be 'earned'."
>> 
>> In this instance, and in several others heard in recent times, the singular 
>> 'good' is used.
>
>I can't answer your question, but healthcare is services rather than goods,
>isn't it?
>
>"I'll have three healthcares, please!"

The singular was commonly used in philosophical discussions of
economics and social policy and, I assume, still is. The man from
Google, he say "Yes".
-- 
Phil C.

Blue Sow wrote:
> There seems to be a change of usage in progress whereby 'goods' is
> being replaced by 'good'.
>
> SOED p. 1125 gives:
> 3 (property and possessions) Now only in pl.
> 4 In pl. (commodities etc).
>
> The use of 'now only' in definition 3 suggests earlier use of the
> singular?
> The following is from BBC News:
> "As such, healthcare in Britain is considered a social right rather
> than a consumer good or something to be 'earned'."
>
> In this instance, and in several others heard in recent times, the
> singular 'good' is used.
>
> Does anyone have any ideas on why this may be happening?

Does it come from economic theory?  I've an idea (subject to correction) 
that in that context it mens something like "benefit".


-- 
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus III
web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk

Defend the waterways.
Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk

Mike Stevens wrote:
> Blue Sow wrote:
>> There seems to be a change of usage in progress whereby 'goods' is
>> being replaced by 'good'.
>>
>> SOED p. 1125 gives:
>> 3 (property and possessions) Now only in pl.
>> 4 In pl. (commodities etc).
>>
>> The use of 'now only' in definition 3 suggests earlier use of the
>> singular?
>> The following is from BBC News:
>> "As such, healthcare in Britain is considered a social right rather
>> than a consumer good or something to be 'earned'."
>>
>> In this instance, and in several others heard in recent times, the
>> singular 'good' is used.
>>
>> Does anyone have any ideas on why this may be happening?
>
> Does it come from economic theory?  I've an idea (subject to
> correction) that in that context it mens something like "benefit".

While Google is an excellent thing, doing a search for 'the moon is 
cheese' gives 2,400,000 hits, so I think it hardly a reliable measure of 
the veracity of things.

John of Aix wrote:

> While I don't like 'good' it is sure that if there is a plural there is 
> a singular, so good is acceptable? genrally though, as you've seen, it 
> is 'goods' and one adjust the rest of the phrase to suit rather than 
> using 'good'. If I needed the singular I would use another word, 
> product, material etc. 
> 
> 

Is a trouser, or a scissor, a good?

In article <46d5a7c8$0$11450$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>,
 Blue Sow  writes:
>The following is from BBC News:
>"As such, healthcare in Britain is considered a social right rather
>than a consumer good or something to be 'earned'."
>
>In this instance, and in several others heard in recent times, the
>singular 'good' is used.
>
>Does anyone have any ideas on why this may be happening?

Illiteracy?
-- 
John Hall         "Never play cards with a man called Doc.
                   Never eat at a place called Mom's.
                   Never sleep with a woman whose troubles
                   are worse than your own."               Nelson Algren

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:41:16 +0100, "Mike Stevens"
 wrote:

>Blue Sow wrote:
>> There seems to be a change of usage in progress whereby 'goods' is
>> being replaced by 'good'.

>Does it come from economic theory?  I've an idea (subject to correction) 
>that in that context it mens something like "benefit".

Yes - sort of. It contrasts an economic benefit/objective/result with
other types - a "social good",  a human right (or whatever) which
can't be valued in purely economic terms and is thus beyond the scope
of mere economists. An economist can tell me if I'm rich but he can't
tell me if I'm happy or noble in spirit.

It's been used in economic theory for a long time (certainly since I
were a lad and probably long before) and is different from our usual
understanding of "goods" as merchandise or possessions. A Google on a
term such as "an economic good" will show how the concept is used.
-- 
Phil C.

Phil C. wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:41:16 +0100, "Mike Stevens"
>  wrote:
>
>> Blue Sow wrote:
>>> There seems to be a change of usage in progress whereby 'goods' is
>>> being replaced by 'good'.
>
>> Does it come from economic theory?  I've an idea (subject to
>> correction) that in that context it mens something like "benefit".
>
> Yes - sort of. It contrasts an economic benefit/objective/result with
> other types - a "social good",  a human right (or whatever) which
> can't be valued in purely economic terms and is thus beyond the scope
> of mere economists. An economist can tell me if I'm rich but he can't
> tell me if I'm happy or noble in spirit.
>
> It's been used in economic theory for a long time (certainly since I
> were a lad and probably long before) and is different from our usual
> understanding of "goods" as merchandise or possessions. A Google on a
> term such as "an economic good" will show how the concept is used.

Yes, we know that - but the case in point is "a consumer good", which from 
the context is definitely being used as the singular of "consumer goods". 
They actually meant "a commodity", of course.
-- 
John Briggs

"Blue Sow"  wrote in message 
news:46d5a7c8$0$11450$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> There seems to be a change of usage in progress whereby 'goods' is being 
> replaced by 'good'.
>
> SOED p. 1125 gives:
> 3 (property and possessions) Now only in pl.
> 4 In pl. (commodities etc).
>
> The use of 'now only' in definition 3 suggests earlier use of the 
> singular?
>
> The following is from BBC News:
> "As such, healthcare in Britain is considered a social right rather than a 
> consumer good or something to be 'earned'."
>
> In this instance, and in several others heard in recent times, the 
> singular 'good' is used.
>
> Does anyone have any ideas on why this may be happening?
> I have checked with the OED on-line and even the draft additions for 2007 
> do not suggest using the singular in this way.
>
> Blue Sow

My only suggestion is that it's crept in somehow from the sphere of
economics. I wasn't previously aware it was somehow offensive.

FWIW Chattel is entirely acceptable in the singular, despite it often
implies plurality, particularly with the hazy etymology whereby, well,
it could mean capital, it could mean cattle, but the talk is of goods
and chattels.

I was pretty sure that Economics graduates of 15 years hence used
the term in its singular.

Or perhaps it simply reflects the fact they were all too cool to tell
me it wasn't a normal usage within their discipline when my use of
it in the singular went unchallenged!

Perhaps the OED bods are too busy with all the new made-up words
that meeja types like to saturate the language with to read such 
publications
as The Economist, The New Statesman, The Spectator, possibly some
of the less red-brick semi-academic journals in market research and/or
supermarket retailing--the ones that are slightly too respectable to count
as mere trade-press titles but are still "accessible" enough to not really 
cite
statistical data.

Otherwise it seems to heark back legal language at a point in time when
the language underwent a lot of change (Domesday era) and, as such, if
Chattels is an acceptable term whereby an implicit plural by way of
being a mass noun is then pluralised once more then it follows that
if one has two herds of sheep and one keeps them in different fields
then one can indeed farm sheeps, possibly even sheepses.

Whatever, I certainly second your logic that "now only" implies it
has been used in the singular previously. I thought the Sale of Goods
Act and suchlike used the plural mainly for convenience.

In short, I'm sure I've used it myself on numerous occasions and nobody's
batted an eyelid but can't recall any particular time any authority has used
it in the singular.

Logic seems to dictate that there is no problem discussing a "service"
in the singular and economic theory talks of Goods and Services and,
as they to be compared as homogeneously as possible when it comes
to such frameworks as marginal pricing and marginal utility then it's
somewhere language fails to represent the world around us if singular
instances are somehow prohibited.

Add to that the fact that GNP and GDP and suchlike use "product"
in the singular when they mean the totality of all goods, services and
net economic gain for a given period of time (from memory not textbook
if the definition is at odds with Digby and his stat's-winking chums)

Thus I accept the BBC's usage in this instance.

G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--