Search results for 'tag:Singular nouns tag:Countable nouns' matching tags 'Singular nouns' and 'Countable nouns'

Re: article

CalifJim — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 01:51:53 GMT

Cool Breeze
However, what you have made a mistake with in my humble opinion is that the indefinite article isn't used with uncountable nouns. The defintite article (the) can be used with all nouns.

Yes, yes, yes. I know that. Maybe I used the wrong words to express what I was trying to say. Maybe I should have said it as follows:

Only an uncountable noun can be used without an article (if it's singular).

The formulation in sea uses no article.

Therefore it treats sea as uncountable.

But I know for a fact that, on the contrary, sea is countable.

Therefore, in sea is wrong (because it contains a countable singular noun being used without an article).

_____

The argument, I'll admit, doesn't specify which article (a or the) will fix what's wrong.

Does this explanation make it clearer what I was getting at?

(Thanks for responding. Sorry about the e-mail problem.

There should be a list on the right with your latest discussions, by the way. Maybe that will help. )

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.

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: in quotation marks

Clive — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 21:09:54 GMT

Hi,

Should I treat what is in a pair of quotation marks just like an adjective without any difference in terms of whether to place an article or not? Yes.

I feel like you have to have an article, 'a' or 'the' or 'an', before a quoted content acting as an adjective for a singular noun. With a singular countable noun, yes, you need some kind of determiner.

... reveals an aspect of 'pali-pali' Korean culture. This is fine.

-- The 'culture' is an uncountable, I think. Yes.

Best wishes, Clive

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

Cool Breeze — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:52:23 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
since laughter is an uncountable noun, unlike evening.
Unlike evening? Wow! In that sentence I understand evening as uncountable! (evening-ness?) Aren't all singular nouns in English uncountable when used without articles?

I didn't make my point clearly enough. I said evening is countable, I didn't say it is countable in Steinbeck's sentence. Evening is listed as countable in dictionaries, unlike laughter. Therefore it is possible to say: I spent two evenings with her, but we can't normally say: I heard two laughters from the street. Steinbeck uses evening as uncountable in his sentence. I find that a little odd and it makes me ask: why? I am just trying to figure out an answer for myself, I'm not trying to convince all members of these forums that I have the ultimate truth on the matter.

I mentioned representative in a previous post. If Portugal sends only one representative to a beauty contest, we normally say:

The representative of Portugal won the beauty contest.

If I treat representative as uncountable, I get:

Representative of Portugal won the beauty contest.

I find that sentence a little odd, if not downright incorrect. Similarly, since a hot day has only one evening - it is possible to say "one evening" because "evening" is countable - I would prefer to say:

The evening of a hot day...

I don't object to Steinbeck's choice, I'm just trying to squeeze it into the right grammatical pigeon hole in my brain. Anyway, Jim, I think you said earlier that you also considered the sentence perhaps a little odd or something, I don't remember your exact words right now. We are actually in complete agreement! And even if we weren't, what would it matter? My signature is: Live and let live. In this case it should be understood: Use your English and let others use theirs. I'm all for linguistic freedom.

CB

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

CalifJim — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:45:34 GMT

since laughter is an uncountable noun, unlike evening.

Unlike evening? Wow! In that sentence I understand evening as uncountable! (evening-ness?) Aren't all singular nouns in English uncountable when used without articles?

CJ

Re: Which sentence is correct?

Clive — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 05:18:49 GMT

Hi,

Which sentence is correct?

1. I ate prawn last night. No

2. I ate prawns last night. OK

3. I had prawns for dinner last night.OK

"prawn" is a countable noun but I heard when we refer to "the meat" we should treat the noun as a singular noun. For some types of meat, but it sounds odd to me to say 'prawn' in these sentences. Such things are rather idiomatic.

Best wishes, Clive

Which sentence is correct?

Anonymous — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 05:06:09 GMT

Hi..

Which sentence is correct?

1. I ate prawn last night.

2. I ate prawns last night.

3. I had prawn(s) for dinner last night.

"prawn" is a countable noun but I heard when we refer to "the meat" we should treat the noun as a singular noun. Is it right?

Thanks before

Re: Correct term for singular possessive as stand-in for a group

Maripinky — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 23:21:32 GMT

I think the grammatical term could be generic noun phrases. When a noun is mentioned as a symbol, example, or representative of all members of a group (almost the same as all + plural or noncount nouns or any + a singular noun) we refer to it as having "generic" reference.

A few generic countable nouns look like definite nouns (they follow the), even though they do not refer to specific, unique things! (they are NOT definite)

The and a singular count noun can refer to a whole group (not just one specific member). This occurs often in formal writing, and with inventions, musical instruments, parts of the body.

The lion is endangered
The heart is like a pump
When was the radio invented?
She plays the piano.
The inexperienced student may need help.

(which lion? not just one lion, but all lions)
(which heart? all hearts)
(which radio? not the radio in my apartment, but the idea)
(which piano? She has this general ability.)
(which student? Any inexperienced student.)

The and a plural count noun can occasionally refer to all members of a human group in general .. not just particular people konwn to the speaker/writer and listener/reader. This is the least common kind of generic nouns, usually referring to a religiously, politically, or professionally-based group of people.
The Germans are known for their beer.
The Republicans will meet in Philadelphia (which Germans? all of them)
(which Republicans? representatives of all of them)
The can also be followed by an adjective (with no noun) to refer to a whole class (usually of people):
The blind leading the blind
The rich and the poor (which blind what? all blind people)
(which rich/poor what? all rich/poor people)

any in summary

New2grammar — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:52:45 GMT

I have gone through a lot of the old posts on the topic any. This is my understanding of any usage.

Any can be followed by a plural/uncountable/singular noun.

1. When any is used in interogative or negative form, it is usually followed by a plural/uncountable noun. Does it mean that the verb always agrees with the plural/uncountable noun if the noun is also a subject?

For example,

Do you have any kids that are older than 9 years old?

There aren't any good options.

Exceptional case.

He is amazed that there isn't any sales tax in MN.

There isn't any widely used password checker out there which has the ...

2. When it is used in declarative form, it is usually followed by a singular noun.

Any idea is a good idea => the verb agrees with the singular noun idea.

Exceptional case.

If you have any comments, please e-mail them to me. => the pronoun agrees with the plural noun comment

Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks