Talk:Count noun

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)[reply]

I agree with the objections above, so I changed the definition of count noun and removed some of the discussion in the previous version. For example, "Enron corporation" is not really a mass noun, it is either a proper name, or a collective noun. I think it is interesting to have some discussion of Mandarin Chinese, but I think the entry for "count noun" should reflect how other languages work, too. User:Neither

Section on Chinese doesn't belong here at all

It's a "mee too" section just to list "Chinese" - a form of nationalism.
Whole section can be reduced to "Chinese treats all nouns as (basically) mass and uses a unit of measurement to get countable expressions".
That doesn't add anything that wasn't already said in the article since the same concept has already been explined and if Chinese uses that same concept more than English that's the matter for an article on Chinese.
Even if there was some genuinely different concept in Chinese, its relevance for this particular article would be questionable. Especially examples since they can be followed solely by people who speak Chinese. Many languages have their pecularities but that's not enough to pass the bar for a general English article.
Articles on comparative linguistics are the proper place for texts that compare languages.

Reduntant entries: mass noun/count noun

It seems to me that the entries for mass and count nouns ought to be collapsed into one, and one of them should be replaced entirely by a redirect. A lot of the information is repeated in these two entries. If nobody objects, I will do this in the near future. Neither 17:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object, but FYI, it's usual to add merge notices ({{merge-from|other article|date=October 2006}} and {{merge-to|other article|date=October 2006}}) to the two articles. Ruakh 22:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, will do. Neither 22:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was suggested a little over four years ago today, and since I was about to go to this page and suggest it, I think I'll finish this. But I have a slightly more complicated suggestion (see below).

Merge into quantization?

I suggested that we move this page, as well as the mass noun article, into quantization. But that also covers telicity; should all be merged into the quantization article, or is that too ambitious? 66.59.249.107 (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objection - that would destroy discoverability and accessibility. I landed at this page straight from search for "countable noun" and it was actually helpful with very good, short and to the point examples. The article on "mass noun" is much longer and much less accessible due to diversion into theoretical linguistics which is too recent to even know if it's long-term viable (a 1998 book) and by any standard belongs to a separate article.

Suggestion - move that theoretical part (whole "Cumulativity and mass nouns" section) from "mass noun" to "quantization" and copy the short "Theory" from this article to "mass noun" as a reference. Try to keep both this article and "mass noun" short and accessible. Move and groups everything derived from that 1998 book under that "quantization" article.131.107.0.81 (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger revisited - explaining by contrast and acknowledging both types of usage for the same word

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)[reply]

I agree, it's really the same topic, there should be just one article. Victor Yus (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]