Talk:Mass noun

message: This page would benefit by having information on the presence or absence of mass nouns in other languages, how they operate, and how they can be ditinguished. — Hippietrail 12:29, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass nouns in languages other than English

message: The phrase "The work of logicians like Godehard Link and Manfred Krifka established that ... " incorrectly suggests that both scholars are logicians. In fact, only Godehard Link is a logician, Manfred Krifka is a linguist. You cannot be a logician if you don't have a single article on logic. (Krifka's list of publications is to be found here: http://amor.rz.hu-berlin.de/~h2816i3x/articles.html)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooklyn358 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Logicians and linguists

message: It might be worth adding a note to redirect people who are looking for collective noun. On Wiktionary I'm finding people constantly using the term "collective noun" when they are really talking about the idea of "uncountable noun" / "mass noun" / "non-count noun" — Hippietrail 12:36, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: [Note: a discussion of mass-vs-collective has since been added at Collective noun.] Lumbercutter 18:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Obviously already dealt with, but if people use "collective noun" to refer to "uncountable nouns", the misunderstanding is taking place at the other article and not this one. — LlywelynII 14:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass vs collective

message: I'm no grammarian but some of this seems like just a UK issue. I don't know who makes the call when something passes from common use into the realm of acceptable grammer but in America if someone made a to-do over "10 items or fewer" they'd get laughed outt the supermarket. On this side of the ocean, "10 items or less" is correct as far as I know/can tell. Anyone know what I'm getting at? That at which I'm getting/attempting to get?
But seriously, On issues of grammar where UK and American English may differ (not to mention other varieties of English) what is what is wikipedia's position? I suppose there should be a way to address both, huh? If anyone could weigh in on this, hit up my talk page, that'd be awesome. thanks, Kzzl:talk 17:29, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: . — LlywelynII 14:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  how bout addressing american vs. british english? 

message: I believe the article should address the fact that in different areas, different nouns are considered mass. This might be obvious, but it is not addressed (to my knowledge) in the article. For instance, in Idaho, USA, "potato" is a mass noun, whereas nearly everywhere else, you would not say "I grow potato on my farm." You would say "I grow potatoes on my farm." I'll add it in myself if no one objects. GofG |||  Contribs 14:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addressing Idioms 

message: I put in my two cents. I hope interested parties find it acceptable. If not, let me know. Kzzl 17:38, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  well, I did my thing 

message: I reverted the change made by  Boredzo, reinserting the passange "It is often errouneously thought that.." (in fact the word "erroneously" was not part of the original edit) Removing it substantially changed the meaning of the paragraph, and made it inconsistent.   The point is that mass nouns *cannot* be defined in terms of what they refer to, but must rather be defined with reference to their grammatical properties, such as co-occurrence restrictions.  I also made some other additions to the same paragraph to make this point clearer.
--Neither 11:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  substances vs. expressions 

message: Not sure I see that the paragraph added by Corvun isn't covered by the one immediately following his.  I also don't think it's accurate to say that the form "waters" intensifies the meaning of  "water" or that "sands" intensifies "sand".  In any case, he should give sources for that, and clarify what he means by such intensification.  I vote for a revert.--Neither 10:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: pluralized mass nouns

message: Does the use of the different forms depend on whether the speaker eats shark?  Surely the criteria if it is intended to be eaten.  Anybody have any ideas? Garethhamilton 19:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Shark/sharks

message: Are mass nouns both mass and proper/common?(83.118.38.37 13:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper/Common

message: In general, partitive nouns for things that can be eaten are count nouns when they're not intended to be eaten, and mass nouns when they are.  For example, if you cut up a few apples and put them in a bowl, they are "pieces of apples" if you're painting a still life, but "pieces of apple" if you intend to eat them.  The fish example actually applies to lots of foods that aren't fish.  suncrush Aug 16. 2006.
:Suncrush is absolutely right about this, and the article needs to be revised to incorporate the fact that this principle applies to many other nouns. The "Fish" section will need to be changed so that it doesn't imply that this principle applies only to fish. The "specialness" about the word fish isn't that principle, but rather just that it has so darn many senses (noun-count-sg, noun-count-pl, noun-mass, noun-attributive/adj, verb-trans, verb-intrans) anchored on one little inflected form.
:I haven't yet had time to fully rethink these issues and revise accordingly, but it will need to be done sometime. Lumbercutter 02:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Food in general, beyond just fish

message: 1. The discussion here is all over the place. I would submit that two or three people with some expertise in this field be designated to (re-)organise the topic. 
2. Furthermore, those who suggest merging 'mass noun' with 'count noun' are essentially correct. (And by the way, inter-language comparisons are interesting but typically lack much depth).
3. (a) The topic needs to be structured at least in terms of syntactic and semantic contrasts; and (b) merits attention chiefly from qualified linguists and semantically oriented philosophers.
4. I could suggest some potential candidates in both fields, but this may be the first step before proceeding any further - to agree on a few expert contributors.
Henry Laycock
Henry laycock 15:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Henry Laycock, I completely agree with you that this page needs tidying up, and that it needs a clearer separation of syntactic and semantic issues. In fact, at various points, I've been trying to provide exactly this, but I think whatever fruits there may have been of my efforts are lost by now, and I think that's partly due to my failure to provide refereces etc. In my experience, providing accurate information with proper refereces etc. works well in wikipedia, but for some reason, this page seems to be harder to maintain. I suggest that if you have any additions to make, provide references for every point, because that has proven to me to work as a buffer against later removal in other cases.  Neither 00:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert needed 

message: Since the list of examples could be an aid to non-native English speakers and writers, I would like to suggest adding more examples. The first would be "education". Europeans often make the mistake of writing or saying "educations" when they mean "training sessions" or "courses". Thanks, 
BrianSheedy 13:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional example of English mass nouns 

message: Examples of "less" used with count nouns can be found pretty much as far back as written English goes; including in Shakespeare, Eliot, and Dickens.  The article makes it seem as if this is a very recent development in American English that is used by only a few ignorant people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.180.45.200 (talk • contribs).
:I am a linguistics Ph.D. student (American), and I agree with this criticism. In my observation, the "less" vs. "fewer" distinction is one you will find in grammar textbooks, and hardly anywhere else. (I can only speak for this side of the Atlantic.) I've edited the article to highlight the formal nature of the analysis. –Uïfareth Cúthalion (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less vs. fewer 

message: It seems to me all these articles (mass noun, count noun, collective noun, concrete noun, abstract noun, proper noun, common noun) should either be merged together into the noun article, or left separate. I don't much care which. Nor will I lose sleep if I'm overruled. –Uïfareth Cúthalion (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging articles 

message: Maybe it's just me, but I find it funny when count and non-count nouns are deliberately mis-classified. For example,
Someone: Can I have some rice please?
Me: Sure, how many?
Them: Er... a thousand?
I'd be delighted if there are examples of this in popular comedy, and if so, a small section in the article is deserved. As another example, I'm just using my imaginations. RatnimSnave 15:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do they repeat the 'joke' to you when you ask for some water? There's nothing wrong or mis- about using "any" or "some" with uncountable nouns. — LlywelynII 15:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humour 

message: What does anyone make of the word clothes?  It's conjugated in the plural ["Her clothes are all torn."], is modified like a count noun ["I have too many clothes"], but obviously can't be counted, at least not in normal usage.  Sometimes it is modified like a mass noun ["We received a huge amount of clothes as donations."]  Weird, eh?  You think its conjugation has changed since it has an S to look like other plurals, or do you think it used to be a regular count noun that was relexified without being reassigned conjugative numerical value (because of the S)?  I lean toward the latter.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.10.40.0 (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good point.  You are right that the use of "many" suggests it is thought of as a count noun, but it doesn't seem to be possible to give it a number: you can't say "I have nine clothes", and even "how many clothes?" seems wrong.  The treatment as a plural suggests that it is a plurale tantum (like "cattle").  These can sometimes be counted (like cattle), but are often paired, like trousers and binoculars ("five pairs of trousers", but not "five trousers".  I can't think of a similar example to "clothes".  Richard New Forest (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an uncountable t.p. that developed from "cloth". We usually form the plural by using another countable ("garment", "outfit", &c.) or uncountable ("item", "piece", "article", &c. "of clothing"). — LlywelynII 16:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Clothes

message: I have been looking (too long) in Wikipedia for this topic, and can't find it (although it's easily findable in Google, with examples).  It's called there a "Generic Noun".  For example - "I play the piano" (not, "I play pianos").  Or, let's do the exercise, the "knee bender" (not "knees bender", even though everyone has two knees). Can someone tell me where to look for this grammar rule in Wikipedia?  (I'm sure it must be called something else besides "Generic noun").  Thanks.Jimhoward72 (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Generic Nouns"?

message: "Veg" is commonly used in the expressions "meat and veg" to mean meat and vegetables, but also in the great departed British tradition of transport cafes (greasy dives frequented by lorry drivers), the menu would likely offer "meat and two veg" alongside the sausage rolls and bacon butties.  Clearly a count noun here, unmodified by a unit of measure.  "Veg" might be argued as a collective noun in some uses, but calling it a mass noun is dubious.  I welcome your opinions.
21:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In English we tend to use mass nouns for food.  We also tend to use the plural of a count noun as a mass noun.  Thus in the expression "eat your vegetables", "vegetables" is a mass noun.  "Veg" is short for "vegetables" and can be a count or mass noun by context.    Randall Bart    Talk   16:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Vegetables" is not an uncountable noun: you can't say *"Vegetables is good." Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to "slang" English word "veg" as a mass noun 

message: The page is missing important information about the grammatical number of non-count nouns. Nowhere does it clearly state whether non-count nouns are syntactically singular or plural, i.e. whether they agree with "is" or "are".
As far as I understand, there are two types of non-count nouns, those which take the singular, and those which take the plural. The ones that are discussed on this page are all singular non-count nouns, "The water is blue", "The grass is green", etc. The other type of non-count noun is the "Plurale tantum", such as "The clothes are blue" or "The scissors are green". 
--AndreRD (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical number of non-count nouns 

message: This sentence appears in the article:  "However, both mass and count nouns can be quantified in relative terms without unit specification (e.g., "much water," "so many chairs")."  While purporting to show similarity, this actually points up a distinction.  "Much" is a singular word used with mass nouns, while "many" is a plural word used with count nouns.  English doesn't have plural and singular for adjectives, except this special case.    Randall Bart    Talk   16:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much/many distinction 

message: Milk is a mass noun.  You can't have two milks, it's like water, you can't have more than one water.  Well you can, but in containers.  But what about chocolate milk?  I can buy two chocolate milks can I not?  Sure you could say two bottles of chocolate milk, but what if you aren't certain if it comes in bottle or in a paper box?  And you don't want there to be confusion.  So do you side step the problem and ask for "chocolate milk.. two of them"?  Or do you say it improperly and say two chocolate milks?  :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.141.185 (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a way out of the apparent problem. Mass nouns are not "nouns that can never take plural inflections"; rather, they are nouns that take plural inflections only under certain conditions. Which is to say, the exact meaning of "improper" is at issue—does it mean "incorrect" as in solecistic, or does it only mean inappropriate to a register? Pluralizing a mass noun is solecistic only when it is unidiomatic (as in I had gravels in my shoe rather than gravel or pieces of gravel)—it is not always solecistic. One can speak of calming the waters, buying two sodas, or collecting fine wines, and the only question about such usage is not whether it is correct or incorrect but rather whether there is a recasted version that is preferable for formal registers. Thus, in the chocolate milk example, it is idiomatic to say "two chocoloate milks, please", and not solecistic, but if you are striving to avoid informal (casual) register, then you could recast it as "two cartons of chocolate milk, please". In speech, self-editing to that extent can be impractical, and it usually isn't worth the trouble. (Sure it's wise to think before you speak, because tact is valuable in social interactions, but there's a practical limit to tongue-tying oneself merely to please people whose grammar prescriptions are hypercorrective anyway. One does one's best on the fly.) In writing, in contrast with speech—at least in formal writing, thus, in a work email, even if not in texting about what's for dinner—there is a legitimate expectation that after you have banged out your first draft, you will go back over it and refine it. Thus, a certain valid expectation of self-editing. Some people think "two milks" sounds too colloquial for formal writing. (A deep analysis of why they think that, and whether it's justified, is beyond-scope here; but it's enough to know that it's tactful to avoid annoying them.) Thus, you could talk about milks in the cafeteria but turn to "cartons of milk" for an essay, book, or blog, simply because some readers won't like too much casualism (informality, colloquial register) in that context. Usage is context-sensitive, as is the amount of time one chooses to spend on self-editing. Cheers, Quercus solaris (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I came back here because I realized I ignored part of the question: "what if you aren't certain if it comes in a bottle or in a paper box?" That's a good point—how do you handle such a thing in formal writing, given that "two milks" is too colloquial to avoid a reader's censure? This involves moving to a next-higher abstraction layer, which is something that often needs to be done in engineering, management, programming and software development, and technical writing. Typically it will be solved by using a broader word, such as "container" or "unit"; thus, "two containers of milk" or "two units of milk", because "two bottles, cartons, or pouches of milk" sounds awkward. It's often a good solution—although the only problem that one has to be on guard for is avoiding jargony tone, or, to speak more precisely at the risk of being jargony, to keep any jargony tone as low as reasonably practical. It's a balancing act that's context-sensitive. Jargon is valid in technical contexts (because it affords economy and precision of usage) as long as it is being used appropriately and not overused (i.e., needless excess—if a bottle is in front of us, maybe I shouldn't call it a "unit", despite that it is one). But the validity of jargon's use in technical writing depends on how targeted you can assume your audience is. And if you talk about units at the cafeteria table, people will snicker. Quercus solaris (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Chocolate Milk

message: I have removed meat, grass, paper, art, and sugar from the examples list. I understand that they have both countable and uncountable senses. I feel that, if the examples list is to include the words only, without context, it should be limited to words without a countable sense. Otherwise the examples muddle and confuse more than they inform and elucidate. If there were a usage example for each example word, such as "Please pass the sugar" or "Don't walk on the grass", then it would make more sense to include such dual-sense examples. Or, you could simply have a separate list of dual-sense examples. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Mandruss's change was an improvement. Perhaps the next step (part of the "I'll leave that to others") would be to further refine the list so that we start out with a list of the most unambiguous examples (and thus the strongest ones, pedagogically, for this purpose)—ones for which it's almost impossible to have a nonsolecistic count form. Thus advice, blood, evidence, garbage would remain in the opening list, whereas deodorant and food would move to the second list (their count forms are not as unusual). In fact, I will go do that right now (WP:BOLD). Quercus solaris (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Support that. As a general comment, I support "less is more" here. It's not intended to be a comprehensive list of examples, or anything close. It should be a list sufficiently long to clearly illustrate what a mass noun is. I think 10-15 strong examples in each list would be about right, and I count 21 in the current first list and 17 in the second. I leave the rest to people more educated than I, and  seems to be one of those people (I haven't a clue what "nonsolecistic" is, and it's enough of a challenge to spell it). ―Mandruss ☎ 02:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

text: As additional food (uncountable sense) for thought (also uncountable sense), I considered showing the dual-sense examples as fish(es), sugar(s), etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nouns with both senses 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mass noun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219021719/http://d.a.nicolas.free.fr/Nicolas-Mass-nouns-and-plural-logic-Revised-2.pdf to http://d.a.nicolas.free.fr/Nicolas-Mass-nouns-and-plural-logic-Revised-2.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219021719/http://d.a.nicolas.free.fr/Nicolas-Mass-nouns-and-plural-logic-Revised-2.pdf to http://d.a.nicolas.free.fr/Nicolas-Mass-nouns-and-plural-logic-Revised-2.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)