Search results for 'tag:Articles tag:Countable or uncountable' matching tags 'Articles' and 'Countable or uncountable'

Re: I will go for washroom afterwards

Jackson6612 — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:40:45 GMT

Grammar Geek

While a lot of food does have an uncountable sense (I like beef, I like watermelon), I don't find that "apple" is often use that way. If it were, you final Jane line would be "I love to eat apple", not apples.
When it is used as uncountable, it seems to be used more in the sense of flavor: You're eating a slice of pie and say "Oh, I can taste berries... and ... is that apple? Yes, I can taste apple and berries and a hint of lemon!"

However, you certainly get the countable/uncountable difference. And since you do, why did you think that "three washrooms" wasn't using washroom as a countable noun?

Hi Barbara,

I believe you meant to say foods. Right?

I was wrong then. Now it's obvious to me that washroom was used as a countable noun.

Can you do me two favors, please? First, please check the below Analysis for any mistakes. Second, please check my second post on the following page:
http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhyNoArticleHere/ggjmr/post.htm. I'm kinda stuck there.

Apple can either be countable or uncountable noun.

Analysis:

Jack: What did you eat?
Jane: I ate an apple.

Jane used apple as a countable noun. Jane would not say the apple because there was no need to restrict apple

Jack: Where did you get it from?
Jane: I ate the apple that was on the table.

Jane still used apple an a countable noun but now she used article the because she had to specify that where she got it from. So, she restricted that apple using the.

Jack: There were many apples on the table. How many did you eat?
Jane: I ate three apples.

Jane still used apple as a countable noun. She used three to denote the quantity of apples she ate. In a way three also restricted apple.

Jack: I think you really like apples.
Jane: I love to eat apples.

Both, Jack and Jane, used apple as an uncountable noun and there was no article used in front of apples because articles a or an cannot be used with an uncountable noun and there was no need to restrict apples using article the.

Is my analysis correct?

Re: I will go for washroom afterwards

Jackson6612 — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 05:27:57 GMT

Grammar Geek

I ate an apple. I ate the apple that was on the table. I ate three apples.

Do you really think the last one is wrong because "apple" is a countable noun? What role does "three" tell you in that sentence?

Apple can either be countable or uncountable noun.

Analysis:

Jack: What did you eat?
Jane: I ate an apple.

Jane used apple as a countable noun. Jane would not say the apple because there was no need to restrict apple

Jack: Where did you get it from?
Jane: I ate the apple that was on the table.

Jane still used apple an a countable noun but now she used article the because she had to specify that where she got it from. So, she restricted that apple using the.

Jack: There were many apples on the table. How many did you eat?
Jane: I ate three apples.

Jane still used apple as a countable noun. She used three to denote the quantity of apples she ate. In a way three also restricted apple.

Jack: I think you really like apples.
Jane: I love to eat apples.

Both, Jack and Jane, used apple as an uncountable noun and there was no article used in front of apples because articles a or an cannot be used with an uncountable noun and there was no need to restrict apples using article the.

Is my analysis correct?

Re: Is this sentence correct

Mr Wordy — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:43:19 GMT

wholegrain
When we use a singular noun to refer to many instances of the thing we are referring to (or to use for the entire class of such things), it may be uncountable and countable still depending on the definition we use of the word in question?

I'm not sure if you're asking whether the same noun that refers to many instances or a general class can be either countable or uncountable, or whether you're talking about different nouns. In the latter case yes. For example, "traffic" is uncountable; "flock" (of birds) is countable. In the former case, potentially also yes, but examples are harder to think of. "Population" is the best candidate I can come up with right now.

wholegrain
For instance man would be uncountable as it may refer to mankind, therefore it doesn't take any article.

That's correct. If "man" (often "Man") means "mankind" then it is uncountable and does not take an article.

wholegrain
However, in the case of church or state, they always take an article, because of their definition: their definitions making them countable and not uncountable?

"church" meaning the building is countable and takes an article ("I live opposite a church"). "church" can be uncountable, with no article, in the sense I illustrated before.

"state" is normally countable.

"the state" and "the church" (sometimes capitalised as "the State" or "the Church") can also be used in the abstract sense of "the institution". For example:

They can do this because the State decrees it so.

This is a grey area to me in terms as far as terminology is concerned. I'm not sure if "State" here would be classed as a countable noun, or whether it falls outside the countable/uncountable noun classification system.

Re: Is this sentence correct

Mr Wordy — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:17:44 GMT

wholegrain
So, society is countable or uncountable depending on the definition we use.

So, for example when we speak of society as the totality of social relationships among humans, it is uncountable.

But when we speak of society as a group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture, it is countable?

Yep, that's pretty much it.

(Nitpick: uncountable "society" does not always have to be the totality of all social relationships among humans; it can, while still having a "general" meaning, be narrowed down by context. For example, you could talk about "pre-war British working-class society" in an uncountable way.)

wholegrain
Do you think the words church and state can be uncountable?

"Church" can be uncountable in the sense of "attending church" or "what happens in church". Randomly Googled example:

They say vaguely that church is dull, and that they don't want it; then someone makes rather hectic efforts to "brighten" services ...

I can't think of an instance when "state" is "uncountable". It's true that you can say, for example (again randomly Googled):

Miss Aloni was quick to underscore that separation of religion and state would be proper not only from a legal and democratic point of view...

But to me this is not really an "uncountable" use, it's just a special type of construction where the article is omitted. Otherwise you could cite endless examples such as "They arrived by horse and cart" or "In the library I flitted from book to book" and claim that "cart" and "book" can be uncountable, which seems silly. You'd need to ask someone more expert than me exactly what these types of usage are called.

Re: Is this sentence correct

Mr Wordy — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:06:58 GMT

wholegrain
Nouns when used as names for the entire class of such things, can be written without an article at will?

Not at will, no. You can only do this with uncountable nouns. "Nation" is always a countable noun, so you cannot write, for example, "Developed nation is ..." to refer to the entire class of developed nations. You would instead say "Developed nations are...".

On the other hand, "furniture", for example, is an uncountable noun. You can therefore write "Furniture is ..." to refer to furniture in general. (You can also write "The furniture is ..." to refer to some specific furniture that you have in mind.)

Some nouns can be either countable or uncountable, depending on context. Random examples are "life", "rage" and "injustice". The uncountable form typically refers to a general concept or class, and the countable form to a specific instance. These types of noun are not at all unusual; the reason why the "Man is a beast" example is unusual (which I guess I didn't really explain properly) is because uncountable "Man" is here an abstraction of a single individual (to match with "a beast") -- so it's kind of general and specific at the same time. (That's how I read it, anyway.) Something like "Man is the biggest threat to our planet" -- where "Man" means "mankind in general" -- is a more typical example of how this concept works.

Re: creams and detergents

Kooyeen — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:20:00 GMT

I'd say I agree with MrM. My dictionary (Longman) lists those words saying [C or U], which means they can be treated as countable or uncountable nouns, generally speaking. Anyway, even for the uncountable words it doesn't explicitly list as countable too, I think we can say uncountable nouns can often be "categorized" and used with an article. I can't be sure, but I'd say a sentence like this is ok, for example: I've never heard an English like that. = I've never heard a kind of English like that.
By the way, another reason why certain uncountable nouns are often used as countable nouns might be that lots of commercial products are sold in its own container, and uncountable product + container = countable product. A soda. A cream. But this doesn't seem to work for every product, I'm afraid.
Just my opinion.

EDIT: I just read Goodman's post, and I started to think of "waters" to mean two "portions" of water, two bottles, whatever. It seems reasonable, if you think of beers and sodas, but that's exactly the kind of thing I'm not sure about yet. So I searched the net and... I was so lucky! Look, GG says "two waters" at the restaurant, so I guess it's ok to treat it as countable in that context, like other uncountable things.
http://www.englishforums.com/English/SoupEating/clhqn/post.htm

the word "lack" countable or uncountable

Anonymous — Fri, 09 May 2008 01:35:16 GMT

Hi there,

I am from an asian country (korea) and Korean doesn't distinguish countable or uncountable nouns so I have some problem with this concept even though I have been living in english speaking country for 10 years.

Now the word "lack" according to the online Longman dictionary is an uncountable noun, as well as a singular noun.

But we usually say "a lack of quality" or "a lack of resources".

Now we know for sure we never put "a" in front of "water" because "water" is an uncountable noun, as in "furniture" or "stuff".

So how is it that word "lack" can have an indefinite article in front of it?

Does it mean that the English language lacks logic inherently?

Thanks.

Re: The

Clive — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:21:01 GMT

Hi,

1.The low blood pressure is the best insurance you can buy No

2. Low blood pressure is the best insurance you can buy. Yes

Recently a cardiologist told me one of the above after measuring my blood pressure, ECG, etc. I am sorry to say that I don't recall whether he used the first sentence or the second sentence.

My blood pressure was 125/80. It is low and excellent according to him. I am training 3 times a week at the gym. This is the reason for me to maintain the blood pressure like a man of 25 years age. When you are 25, you blood pressure hovering at 125/80.

My question is whether to write 'The blood pressure' or 'blood pressure' in this context.

I know an article is not correct when it comes to uncountable words. However, when we want to generalize, we write an article. <<<No, on the contrary, you don't use an article to generalize. Consider the general statement, 'Sugar is a sweet substance'.

Your blood pressure is throughly countable. No doubt about it! No, it is measurable (125/80) , but that is not the same as being countable. It's like 'My speed is 100kph'. There is a limit for the both values. So it should be 'The blood pressure'. On the other hand, this is a general statement a by a cardiologist to a patient. Thus, you could skip the article too. I am not sure.

Should it be 'The blood pressure' or 'blood pressure'? To generalize, omit 'the'. But say 'the' in specific statements like 'the blood pressure of a man of 25'.

Blood pressure is a term that can be treated as countable or uncountable, but in this context it is uncountable.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: evening (without preposition) / to start to doing

Cool Breeze — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:04:03 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
Not sure why you added this. Yes, it is possible to say one evening or an evening when evening is countable, but if we recognize that in the subject sentence evening is non-countable, and the problem is the, not a or one, I don't see where the logic is going.

the is possible with both countable and non-countable nouns. Wouldn't this strange sentence be more like

Humidity of a hot day ...,

which is equally difficult to explain, isn't it? Or is it? Do you sense that the is required as much here as with evening taken as a non-countable?

Mea culpa. I'm sorry, yes, I didn't express myself very clearly. The logic has nothing to do with using a or an even though the use or omission of the depends on evening or laughter being countable or uncountable. As I said before, it is possible to hear just part of the laughter or some laughter in your example sentence because laughter is uncountable. That fact, to me anyway, seems to justify the omission of the article and your sentence sounds very natural and good to me.

Evening of a hot day sounds a little odd to my ear because evening is normally countable. I know this may not make any sense to other people and I don't think I have ever seen this in any grammar books and I certainly don't want to impose my reasoning and logic - or lack of it - on outsiders. It's just the way I feel about the whole thing and as long as I have got Steinbeck's phrase in the right pigeon hole in the language compartment of my brain, I am satisfied.

Let's have one , I'm thirsty!

CB
EDIT: Your "humidity" example seems indeed very similar to me. Humidity is listed as uncountable in dictionaries.

Re: Articles (a, an)

Yoong Liat — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:25:21 GMT

Hoa Thai wrote:
First, thank you for your reply. Now if you can help me a bit further, I would appreciate very much.

If advice is an uncountable abstract noun, then advices must be wrong, right? (Yesterday, my father gave me his advice. Today, my mother gives me hers. I don't like their ~~two~~ advice at all! 'Advice' is uncountable, so 'two advices' is wrong.)

Now, how could opinion be countable? I certainly cannot physically sense it...opinion and advice are not synonymous but they are both thought related, I think. So why are they different? [ opinion (singular), opinions (plural) Your opinion is what you think about someone or something based on your personal judgement. Advice (uncountable) You give someone advice when you suggest what they should do in a certain situation.

I hope the definitions I've extracted from the dictionary will enable you to see the difference between 'advice' and 'opinion'.]

Regarding satisfaction, here is an online sentence that goes with a:
"Even in those jurisdictions, however, a gift may still be treated as a satisfaction of legacy if such an intention is expressed in a written document made ..."
So the sentence is grammatically incorrect, right? But, doesn't treated as satisfaction of legacy sound unpleasant to you? ( I missed out the fact that 'satisfaction' can be a countable noun. So 'satisfaction' can be countable or uncountable depending on context.) Her success gave her parents a lot of satisfaction. (uncountable noun). A satisfaction is something that gives a feeling of pleasure or contentment ... the immense satisfactions (countable noun) of parenthood.

Shouldn't there be a source, from which we, ESL learners, can learn abstract nouns' nuances?

Thanks
Hoa Thai