Isn't noun plural form like “es” always necessary? I came across the sentence "They have set watch to kill you." but I wonder if the word "watch" need to change to "watches" or "a watch". Isn't noun p

Yuuichi Tam

Isn't noun plural form like “es” always necessary? I came across the sentence "They have set watch to kill you." but I wonder if the word "watch" need to change to "watches" or "a watch". Isn't noun plural form like "es" always necessary?

Apr 3, 2016 5:12 AM

Answers · 9

Hey Yuuichi, The only thing I can think of is that "watch" here means guards. Sometimes we say "to keep watch" which means "to look out for." Where did this example come from? It could be a misprint, a colloquialism, or an esoteric/outdated use. Greg

April 3, 2016

I would say: They have set a watch to kill you. OR They have set watches to kill you. (watch = a lookout or guard) I am American. Perhaps "set watch" is British English, but it doesn't seem correct to me.

April 4, 2016