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

Do they conceptualize this way?

Believer — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:32:01 GMT

Hi,

Different than those who rely on a dictionary to find out whether a particular word is a countable or uncountable noun, do native speakers rely their own knowledge of word usage that naturally stem from years of usage? I think if you look at some dictionaries from America, for instance, I think you will find out some do not have countable or uncountable notations for a word but seem to just list straight definitions of a word. Is that how a native speaker learns to distinguish whether a word is countable or uncountable?

The dictionay I have seems to list many definitions along with many different notations that tell whether each defined noun case for a word is countable or uncountable, or even variable. The definitional entries for 'experience', for example, are many. but when I asked a question in regard to the fact that those many definitions are confusing to apply in real sentential situations, I think a guru has told me to the effect that it all comes down to a general vs. specific differentiation.

Then why is that that word is not shown as a variable noun?

Why is that a dictionary like the one I list some words as a variable noun and for some other words like the word 'experience', it does not say it is a variable noun but goes on to list many definitional entries that seem to come down to general and specific differentiations as a guru seems to have noted in response to one of my inquring posts?

It seems, to native speakers, there is no need to look at a dictionary of my kind to sort through many entries to find one that is likely to meant to be the one that fits more or less perfectly in a particular sentential situation he is not sure about. Sorry if my question is confusing.

Re: The noun "work" - countable or uncountable?

Anonymous — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:44:18 GMT

Thank you so much for sharing your information about your method to teach and clearify your advanced students. I suspected it behaves like that, but incapable to explain it clearer to my students. I would like to read some more comments out on how to explain unusual behaviour of words in English, because I am a spanish English teacher...

Best regards with much gratitude.

Re: Can anybody check the analysis of these sentences?

Mister Micawber — Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:33:47 GMT

Hi Eager,

I have run through and fixed the grammar, but have not had time to consider your analysis, sorry:

There are several linguistic resources that help people express genericness. Below, can be observed several forms that can also express something different than genericness.

In the first pair of sentences, one finds two degrees of genericness expressed by the zero determiner and the presence of a plural count noun. The sentence, 'Park rangers are available' is more specific than 'Park rangers are brave'. As regards meaning: while in the first one the reference is made to a specific place, in the second one, one assumes that the reference is made to all rangers in general, that t implies they must be brave in order to perform their duties.
Two ungrammatical constructions, such as 'The blood irrigates our bodies' and 'A dingo is indigenous to Australia' can also be found. Here, the speaker is trying to express genericness, but the article 'the' makes this impossible. Thus it would be correct if it said 'Blood irrigates our bodies', implying all bodies; and 'Dingos are indigenous to Australia', meaning all dingos.

The last cases are 'Blood is gushing out of his wound' and 'Blood is full of nutrients'. Both denote genericness by means of the lack of article. However, the first one makes reference to the blood of some man, through the use of the possessive adjective 'his'; and the second one to everyoneâs blood. From this, it can be concluded that the former sentence is more specific than the second one.

This exercise is an example of the system of qualification by which one expresses his or her perception of a thing or entity as a countable or uncountable mass noun, around two processes either relating to the semantic nature of entities which are lexicalized as mass or count or to the grammatical marking of entities (singular/plural, mass/count).

Re: Can anybody correct the grammar in this exercise?

anon1 — Mon, 29 Nov 2004 05:40:23 GMT

There are several linguistic resources that help people express genericity(??, what's genercity?). Down below, it can be observed several forms that can also express something different than genericity(?)--awkward sentence.

In the first pair of sentences one find two degrees of genericity expressed by the zero determiner and the presence of a count plural noun. The sentence[,] "Park rangers are available." is more specific than, "Park rangers are brave." As regards meaning, while in the first one the reference is made to a specific place (incomplete); in the second one, one assumes that the reference is made to all the rangers in general, it implies they have to be brave in order to perform their duty.(run-on)

stopped reviewing

Two ungrammatical constructions such as The blood irrigates our bodies and A dingo is indigenous to Australia can also be found. Here the speaker is trying to express genericity, but the article the makes it impossible. Thus it would be correct, if it said Blood irrigates our bodies, implying all bodies; and Dingos are indigenous to Australia, meaning all dingos.

The last cases are Blood is gushing out of his wound and Blood is full of nutrients. Both denote genericity by means of the lack of article. However, the first one makes reference to the blood of some man, through the use of the possessive adjective his; and the second one to everybodyâs blood. From this it can be concluded that the former sentence is more specific than the second one.

This exercise is an example of the system of qualification by which one expresses his or her perception of a thing or entity as a countable or uncountable mass noun, around two processes either relating to the semantic nature of entities which are lexicalized as mass or count or to the grammatical marking of entities (singular/plural, mass/count).

I am not sure if English is a second language or if this is for a course. Your grammar and punctuation are poor.

In the following pair of sentences you will find two degrees of genericity[what is this "genericity"?] expressed by the zero determiner and the presence of a count plural noun.

Sentence A: Park rangers are available.

Sentence B: Park ranger are brave.

With regard to meaning, in Sentence A reference is made to a specific place, while in Sentence B, the reference is implied to all park rangers--it implies that park rangers need to be brave to perform their duties.

You mishmashed your example sentences in with your text and thus it is hard to read and understand. You should strive to make it easy for the reader to quickly and readily grasp the text and its implications. Moreover, you have some incomplete sentences and run-ons. If you had a cleaner structure, I think you would catch your errors more readily.

I hope this helps.

MountainHiker

Can anybody check the analysis of these sentences?

eagertolearn — Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:51:56 GMT

I need to hand in this exercise but I'm not sure about the analysis nor the grammar. If you could have a look at eat I would be really grateful! thank you all!

Explain the use of Generic Noun Phrases (or Noun Groups) in English by analyzing the examples.

There are several linguistic resources that help people express genericity. Down below, it can be observed several forms that can also express something different than genericity.
In the first pair of sentences one find two degrees of genericity expressed by the zero determiner and the presence of a count plural noun. The sentence Park rangers are available is more specific than Park rangers are brave. As regards meaning, while in the first one the reference is made to a specific place; in the second one, one assumes that the reference is made to all the rangers in general, it implies they have to be brave in order to perform their duty.
Two ungrammatical constructions such as The blood irrigates our bodies and A dingo is indigenous to Australia can also be found. Here the speaker is trying to express genericity, but the article the makes it impossible. Thus it would be correct, if it said Blood irrigates our bodies, implying all bodies; and Dingos are indigenous to Australia, meaning all dingos.
The last cases are Blood is gushing out of his wound and Blood is full of nutrients. Both denote genericity by means of the lack of article. However, the first one makes reference to the blood of some man, through the use of the possessive adjective his; and the second one to everybodyâs blood. From this it can be concluded that the former sentence is more specific than the second one.
This exercise is an example of the system of qualification by which one expresses his or her perception of a thing or entity as a countable or uncountable mass noun, around two processes either relating to the semantic nature of entities which are lexicalized as mass or count or to the grammatical marking of entities (singular/plural, mass/count).

Can anybody correct the grammar in this exercise?

eagertolearn — Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:49:27 GMT

I need to hand in this exercise but I want to make sure the grammar is right. I have doubts about the second sentence where it says "Down below..." is it right? Can we say "It can be observed several..."? Thanks for your help!

There are several linguistic resources that help people express genericity. Down below, it can be observed several forms that can also express something different than genericity.
In the first pair of sentences one find two degrees of genericity expressed by the zero determiner and the presence of a count plural noun. The sentence Park rangers are available is more specific than Park rangers are brave. As regards meaning, while in the first one the reference is made to a specific place; in the second one, one assumes that the reference is made to all the rangers in general, it implies they have to be brave in order to perform their duty.
Two ungrammatical constructions such as The blood irrigates our bodies and A dingo is indigenous to Australia can also be found. Here the speaker is trying to express genericity, but the article the makes it impossible. Thus it would be correct, if it said Blood irrigates our bodies, implying all bodies; and Dingos are indigenous to Australia, meaning all dingos.
The last cases are Blood is gushing out of his wound and Blood is full of nutrients. Both denote genericity by means of the lack of article. However, the first one makes reference to the blood of some man, through the use of the possessive adjective his; and the second one to everybodyâs blood. From this it can be concluded that the former sentence is more specific than the second one.
This exercise is an example of the system of qualification by which one expresses his or her perception of a thing or entity as a countable or uncountable mass noun, around two processes either relating to the semantic nature of entities which are lexicalized as mass or count or to the grammatical marking of entities (singular/plural, mass/count).