On the mass noun restaurant rule
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
On the mass noun restaurant rule
I've come to the conclusion that this is a stupid rule.
Basically - mass nouns can't be pluralised in most cases, but there are exceptions, one of which being when the thing is something you might order in a restaurant. So although e.g. FENNEL is a mass noun, because it's so tasty you might order two of them in a restaurant.
Maybe on the face of it this seems reasonable, but I don't think you're really using the word in its ordinary sense when you're using it like this. And the fact that it happens to be a mass noun doesn't really seem relevant. If we're having a restaurant rule it should really apply to anything that can be found on a menu, including plurals like CHIPS. There's nothing special about mass nouns in a case like this, so CHIPSES should also be allowed.
Once Susie offered SALMONS because you could order more than one salmon in a restaurant, even though SALMON isn't a mass noun. It's a normal count noun whose plural just happens to also be SALMON. But if you were ordering two of them in a restaurant, you probably would say SALMONS rather than SALMON. But it's been generally decided that this isn't something that should be allowed.
The point is that something appearing on a menu seems to be an invitation for people to stick an S (or ES or whatever) on the end of a word regardless of how its usually pluralised or indeed whether it is usually pluralised - i.e. generally use the language in a "non-standard" way. Unless this becomes a standard thing to be allowed across the board (so CHIPSES, RAVIOLIS, SALMONS), then there's no reason to specifically allow it for mass nouns. It's just that with mass nouns, it's always a bit borderline whether they can be pluralised or not, so it has given us an illusion of reasonableness. But this illusion has now been exposed.
Basically - mass nouns can't be pluralised in most cases, but there are exceptions, one of which being when the thing is something you might order in a restaurant. So although e.g. FENNEL is a mass noun, because it's so tasty you might order two of them in a restaurant.
Maybe on the face of it this seems reasonable, but I don't think you're really using the word in its ordinary sense when you're using it like this. And the fact that it happens to be a mass noun doesn't really seem relevant. If we're having a restaurant rule it should really apply to anything that can be found on a menu, including plurals like CHIPS. There's nothing special about mass nouns in a case like this, so CHIPSES should also be allowed.
Once Susie offered SALMONS because you could order more than one salmon in a restaurant, even though SALMON isn't a mass noun. It's a normal count noun whose plural just happens to also be SALMON. But if you were ordering two of them in a restaurant, you probably would say SALMONS rather than SALMON. But it's been generally decided that this isn't something that should be allowed.
The point is that something appearing on a menu seems to be an invitation for people to stick an S (or ES or whatever) on the end of a word regardless of how its usually pluralised or indeed whether it is usually pluralised - i.e. generally use the language in a "non-standard" way. Unless this becomes a standard thing to be allowed across the board (so CHIPSES, RAVIOLIS, SALMONS), then there's no reason to specifically allow it for mass nouns. It's just that with mass nouns, it's always a bit borderline whether they can be pluralised or not, so it has given us an illusion of reasonableness. But this illusion has now been exposed.
- Mark Deeks
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am
Re: On the mass noun restaurant rule
Never lead with the conclusion.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: On the mass noun restaurant rule
This isn't a crime novel. The reader wants to know where you're going.Mark Deeks wrote:Never lead with the conclusion.
- Johnny Canuck
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1650
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
- Location: Montréal 😃, Québec 😕, Canada 😃
Re: On the mass noun restaurant rule
I'm not repluralising -S plurals to -SES in my initial wikicaps (unless the -SES forms are listed in Lexplorer), regardless of the restaurant rule. If cases like this come up, you can add them if you want but you'll have to edit the wikicaps yourself.
I'm not dead yet. In a rut right now because of stress from work. I'll be back later in S89. I also plan to bring back the Mastergram - if I can find a way to run a timer or clock through pure MediaWiki without having to upload to Vimeo every time.
- Mark Deeks
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am
Re: On the mass noun restaurant rule
I think the major problem with the restaurant rule, even beyond its subjectivity, is that....well, does anyone really do this in restaurants?
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark
-
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3661
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm
Re: On the mass noun restaurant rule
If you were ordering SALMONS, would you not just say "two salmon"?
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: On the mass noun restaurant rule
You'd have to be pretty greedy.Mark Deeks wrote:I think the major problem with the restaurant rule, even beyond its subjectivity, is that....well, does anyone really do this in restaurants?
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 645
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 6:41 pm
Re: On the mass noun restaurant rule
Most places you tend to help yourself to cereals, but what if you had to order them - would you ask for 2 Corn Flakes, 2 Corn Flakeses, or maybe ask for one Corn Flakes and another Corn Flakes? Or give up and have 2 Weetabixes instead?
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:48 am
Re: On the mass noun restaurant rule
What are the exact rules about the "S (or ES or whatever)"? I think we need some in order to apply such a rule. Can we assume they're the 'regular' plural rules we were once taught? If that's the case then I guess we can conclude that, while the normal plural of CURRY is CURRIES, at a restaurant you would nonetheless be ordering two CURRYS....Gavin Chipper wrote:The point is that something appearing on a menu seems to be an invitation for people to stick an S (or ES or whatever) on the end of a word regardless of how its usually pluralised or indeed whether it is usually pluralised
- Ian Fitzpatrick
- Devotee
- Posts: 620
- Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:23 pm
- Location: Wimborne, Dorset
Re: On the mass noun restaurant rule
My local restaurant doesn't know how I spell what I sayStewart Gordon wrote:What are the exact rules about the "S (or ES or whatever)"? I think we need some in order to apply such a rule. Can we assume they're the 'regular' plural rules we were once taught? If that's the case then I guess we can conclude that, while the normal plural of CURRY is CURRIES, at a restaurant you would nonetheless be ordering two CURRYS....Gavin Chipper wrote:The point is that something appearing on a menu seems to be an invitation for people to stick an S (or ES or whatever) on the end of a word regardless of how its usually pluralised or indeed whether it is usually pluralised
I do think Suzie's rule is wrong, however.
I thought I was good at Countdown until I joined this forum