Hi, Mike! Recently you wrote in a message to ALEXANDER KORYAGIN:

I may be using "singular" and "uncountable" interchangably
(and incorrectly!), but I would use MEANS in your example
also.

IMHO your usage is correct, although you're not sure how to explain it. Maybe I can help a bit re the latter.... :-)



The term "singular" is used with reference to a noun indicating the name of a single person, place, thing, idea, organization, or event:


My friend Mary enjoys horseback riding.

Vancouver, BC is located near the Pacific Ocean.

I have an eraser on my desk.

Love makes the world go 'round.

The city council wants to install more bike lanes.

Our folk music festival takes place annually at Jericho Park.



As a native speaker, you may not have heard the terms "countable" & "uncountable" in school. I think I probably learned them from Alexander. But you may recall being taught about stuff which is usually measured by weight or by volume... e.g. various liquids, meat/fish/poultry, cheese, and salt because it's okay to say "less" whereas with countable objects one should say "fewer".

People, places, and concrete objects such as erasers are countable. When I specify my friend Mary I do it because I'm aware that a number of other folks have the same name. When I specify Vancouver, BC I do it because I know there's a city in Washington State with the same name. WRT erasers.... I have two, actually, but I would direct others to the one which is easier to find if they don't care whether they are using a Pink Pearl or an artist's gum eraser.

I reckon where some of the confusion lies is that we treat abstract nouns as singular. Your teachers & mine may not have gone into detail re such concepts because... while the average student in junior high is experiencing a phase of rapid brain growth which is the ideal time to introduce them... other students will claim loudly & adamantly that abstract nouns don't exist because Miss Grinch in grade three never mentioned them. OTOH, the common parlance is rife with examples many native speakers will have seen or heard before:


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Handsome is as handsome does.

Happiness is a warm puppy.

Home is where the heart is.

Honesty is the best policy.

Many a mickle makes a muckle (Scottish proverb).

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of
the squares on the other two sides.


If we cast our minds back a century or so, many people from Ireland decided to relocate in the USA because the Potato Blight meant they didn't have enough to eat. Not long afterward some of my ancestors from England decided to relocate in Canada... perhaps at least in part, as I discovered recently, because there was an economic recession in certain areas which made it difficult for them to find paid employment. When I run examples through my head, using synonyms for "lack", I keep coming up with the same answers. Whether these people suffered from a lack of food, an insufficiency of funds, or what have you they chose to "seek their fortune" in a developing country which eagerly adopted & sometimes even actively recruited farmers & other skilled workers of all sorts.... :-))




--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)

I may be using "singular" and "uncountable" interchangably
(and incorrectly!), but I would use MEANS in your example
also.

IMHO your usage is correct, although you're not sure how to

explain

it. Maybe I can help a bit re the latter.... :-)

That is a good way to put it. :)

As a native speaker, you may not have heard the terms "countable"
"uncountable" in school. I think I probably learned them from Alexander. But
you may recall being taught about stuff which is usually measured by weight or
by volume... e.g. various liquids, meat/fish/poultry, cheese, and salt because
it's okay to say "less" whereas with countable objects one should say "fewer".

Thanks, I am not sure I did ever hear those terms used, but you have successfully reminded me of the difference between using "less" and
"fewer." I shall have to admit that it this part of the US, you are not
likely to hear "fewer" used much... although I agree it is correct, I
believe most Kentuckians would use "less" in both instances. :)

I reckon where some of the confusion lies is that we treat

abstract

nouns as singular. Your teachers & mine may not have gone into detail re such
concepts because... while the average student in junior high is experiencing >phase of rapid brain growth which is the ideal time to introduce them... other
students will claim loudly & adamantly that abstract nouns don't exist because
Miss Grinch in grade three never mentioned them. OTOH, the common parlance is
rife with examples many native speakers will have seen or heard before:

I am not certain that we spent much time on abstract nouns, either. We did learn that they could be used as nouns but I don't think much emphasis was
put on the "abstract" bit. :)

Mike

---
þ SLMR 2.1a þ Gender: ___ Male ___ Female _X_ Wraeththu
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Hi, Mike! Recently you wrote in a message to ARDITH HINTON:

As a native speaker, you may not have heard the terms
"countable" & "uncountable" in school. I think I
probably learned them from Alexander. But you may
recall being taught about stuff which is usually
measured by weight or by volume... e.g. various
liquids, meat/fish/poultry, cheese, and salt because
it's okay to say "less" whereas with countable objects
one should say "fewer".

Thanks, I am not sure I did ever hear those terms used,
but you have successfully reminded me of the difference
between using "less" and "fewer." I shall have to admit
that it this part of the US, you are not likely to hear
"fewer" used much...

It's becoming increasingly rare around these parts. And FOWLER'S, a UK source, notes that many people use "less" with countable nouns but describes such situations as "regrettable"... [wry grin].

I am not certain that we spent much time on abstract nouns,
either. We did learn that they could be used as nouns but
I don't think much emphasis was put on the "abstract" bit.

Various terms have been used to codify English grammar. Some people tried to improve on traditional grammar forty or fifty years ago... but the net result was that many others threw up their hands in despair & gave up trying to figure it out. I am grateful for having learned traditional grammar because my reference books & my Russian friends use +/- the same terminology. When I know the name of some concept or other I can look it up, and I learn a lot that way.

People who are learning English as a foreign language have access to charts & diagrams you & I have probably never seen. But if as a native speaker you happened to be in my class while another student was trying to persuade his audience that love, friendship, and willingness to learn don't exist because he is stuck on an eight-year-old level... I would have done my best to cite enough examples before the discussion ground to a halt that you would understand. :-)




--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)