-2

If we have three groups of people with 100 hundred people in each group, do we need to use "of"?

1) There are three hundreds of people in the street.

or

2) There are three hundreds people in the street.

Another context with the superlative adjective form.

3) I have seen more than three hundred of the happiest people in the street.

Am I correct to consider that "of" can't be omitted in sentence 3 because of "the happiest"?

jmrpink
  • 292
  • 1
  • 5
user1425
  • 4,410
  • 11
  • 49
  • 74

1 Answers1

3
  1. No. It is not idiomatic to use either hundreds or of when a specific number precedes the hundred.

So.

hundreds of people

is fine, as is

two hundred people

but not

two hundreds of people.

The same applies to thousand, million, dozen, score. It doesn't apply to pair, couple, which always take of (except, I think, colloquially in some places in the US).

  1. This is a different construction. of means out of, and cannot be omitted. The (rather than the superlative) makes it a definite group, that you are selecting some from.
Colin Fine
  • 75,266
  • 4
  • 98
  • 158
  • That's what I thought but wasn't sure. Would it be correct to say "There are three hundreds people in the street" meaning "There are three groups of people, 100 people each"? – user1425 Aug 10 '18 at 20:55
  • I hope you find it correct on its own "three hundreds people" with the meaning of three groups of 100 each. – user1425 Aug 10 '18 at 21:14
  • @user1425 That sounds strange. You would more commonly say, "There are three groups of a hundred people on the street." – Jason Bassford Aug 10 '18 at 21:51
  • 1
    @user1425: Three hundreds of people is grammatical, but very unusual. I guess it might mean "three specific groups of a hundred people", but I'm not sure. Three hundreds people is not grammatical. – Colin Fine Aug 10 '18 at 22:04
  • @ Jason Bassford I suppose it does sound strange. But that's exactly why it should be cleared up. Grammar is strange sometimes. – user1425 Aug 10 '18 at 22:33