Talk:Count noun

message: :Has this dispute been resolved? If so, can someone please clean up the article so it doesn't show these ugly boxes anymore and in place where it looks like the "Misunderstanding" section is under "factual" dispute and it doesn't seem to have any factual errors. The article on mass noun states exactly the same thing (that count vs. mass determination is purely gramatical) albeit in much more dry language. To quote it: "the difference is in the language, not in the reality of the objects".
I disagree with the discussion of count noun in this article.  If a classifier or measure word must be used, then it seems to me that it is a mass noun ( i.e. the noun itself cannot be counted ).  For example, furniture is a mass noun, even though it is commonly counted using the measure word 'piece':  Two pieces of furniture .
The concepts explored by the example of a corporation is a different one:  that is, the difference in the semantics of corporation as a singular noun and corporation as a plural noun.  That is a different discussion, which doesn't seem to belong on the count noun page -- or if it does, it shouldn't comprise the majority of the article.  -- Olof
The distinction between a mass noun and a count noun can have little to do with the noun's referent, as in the "furniture" example.
"Clothes" is a mass noun, it seems. -- User:Juuitchan
:I think one way to put it, though this definition might be too sciency jargony for inclusion in the wiki (not to mention OR), is that a count noun is any noun that is also its own unit, while a mass noun is not and thus may be quantified only if you use a separate unit for quantification.  By this definition "clothes" would indeed be a mass noun, though an odd one since you use plural verbs with it. Mbarbier (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

message: It appears to me that the mass noun article contains a much better discussion of the idea that both types of usage (i.e. count and mass noun usage) are sometimes acceptable for the same word. This article seems to mostly assume that a given word is inherently either a mass noun or a count noun, and that only by strenuous effort it may be possible to try to twist one into the other. That is not in fact the case, and the mass noun article contains a pretty good discussion of that – including providing several examples (including 'fire' and 'chicken', which I found particularly helpful).
Moreover, since the explanation of the concept of count nouns depends on a contrast with mass nouns and vice-versa, it would seem to me that merging the two articles would be beneficial. Certainly, the idea of context-dependent uses of the same word as either a count noun or a mass noun is a discussion that is in common when explaining either concept. Redirects can be used to help people find a merged article when looking specifically for an explanation of count nouns or mass nouns.
I came here when when thinking about 'fruit'. I might tell someone to go to the store and buy some fruit (as with 'furniture') or to help themselves to a piece of fruit while gesturing toward a basket of apples, pears, and bananas (again, as with 'furniture'). However, it also seems correct to say that "Wild-collected fruits of the common pawpaw (Asimina triloba) have long been a favorite treat" (a phrase that is, in fact, found in the Asimina article – an article that exhibits both types of usage for 'fruit'). This article didn't help much to explain what sort of noun 'fruit' was. The mass noun article was more helpful. 
Count nouns cannot really be understood well without understanding mass nouns and without understanding that the line between them can be blurry, and hence the merge suggestion.
—BarrelProof (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's really the same topic, there should be just one article. Victor Yus (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger revisited - explaining by contrast and acknowledging both types of usage for the same word