Official mass noun dispute thread

[Charlie Reams]

Everyone loves arguing about mass noun plurals, and this seems like an ideal place to do it.

So I will begin by saying, OPALINES should be allowed.

[Jon Corby]

I don't know about OPALINES, as I doubt I've ever used the word, but I will add that CLOVERS should be allowed. Everybody must have used that word at least once in their life, yet Susie has disallowed it. We all refer to a four-leafed clover, don't we?

[cheekbones3]

Nah, CLOVER to me is singular and plural, although you're almost swaying me with referral to all those four-leaved clovers...

[Harry Whitehouse]

But Wikipedia lists 102 "selected" species. If I sow half a dozen of them as a fodder crop, are there not several clovers there?

[Jon Corby]

Nah, CLOVER to me is singular and plural, although you're almost swaying me with referral to all those four-leaved clovers...

Yeah, but that's a different kettle of clovers altogether. If CLOVER was simply the plural, that would mean you have the concept of a clover, and it would list the plural specifically. Mass noun means you can't refer to a clover.

[Harry Whitehouse]

Ah, thank you. The train hasn't quite arrived at my station, though.

If there is a haddock, a cod and a plaice on a slab, there are three fish, and each one is a fish.

But if I pick a trifolium africanum, a trifolium albopurpureum and a trifolium alexandrinum, although each one is a clover, and together they are clover, there are also three clovers. "Clovers", though, is not a valid submission?

[Julian Fell]

Everyone loves arguing about mass noun plurals, and this seems like an ideal place to do it.

So I will begin by saying, OPALINES should be allowed.

OPALINE isn't actually even a mass noun. Well, it is, but it isn't - unless the way Dictionary Corner use the dictionary has changed recently? The way the rules on mass nouns were always interpreted by Dictionary Corner when I was watching regularly (2000-2003) was that the [mass noun] marker had to be actually next to the word in the dictionary, for it to be a mass noun. So even with words like OPALINE, where the definition is simply "another term for MILK-GLASS", and MILK-GLASS is marked as a mass noun, OPALINE would not be considered a mass noun because it doesn't have that marker actually next to it. This was the case even before the current mass nouns rule came in, i.e. when all plurals of words marked [mass noun] were definitely not allowed.

This never seemed very logical to me - if word Y is defined simply as "another term for word X", and word X is a mass noun, surely word Y is as well - but the rule was at least clear. Have DC started disallowing OPALINES or similar words recently?

As for Harry's post, I think you're getting yourself confused by using FISH as an example - FISH does have a plural, which is FISH (or alternatively FISHES). So by saying halibut, cod etc are FISH, you're not saying that FISH is a mass noun.

Julian

[Harry Whitehouse]

Yes, I'm quite good at puzzling myself - I never need any help doing that.

[Ben Pugh]

Everyone loves arguing about mass noun plurals, and this seems like an ideal place to do it.

So I will begin by saying, OPALINES should be allowed.

This never seemed very logical to me - if word Y is defined simply as "another term for word X", and word X is a mass noun, surely word Y is as well - but the rule was at least clear. Have DC started disallowing OPALINES or similar words recently?

Julian

http://thecountdowncorral.com/cd/recap.asp?recap=1131

[Julian Fell]

I see... thanks for the heads-up Ben. That's muddied the waters a bit... although it is more logical. When I say it used to be the rule, I mean DC never came out and said it in so many words, but that was clearly the practice they were following - if Soo's old recaps ever go back far enough I'll be able to show you loads of examples. So it's interesting that they've changed. Interesting that that particular word was disallowed as well, since I'm sure I remember Damian saying once on Gevin's group ages and ages ago that OPALINES would be ok.

Anyway what do I know!

[Julian Fell]

... yes, just did a search for OPALINES in both the old mailing lists - it seems this is a bit of an old chestnut which has been endlessly discussed in my absence! At least it proves I'm not talking rubbish, Soo/Charlie and Gevin (now Gavin) have both said they thought the rule was what I have just said it was, and were similarly surprised when DC started disallowing OPALINES (and MILAGES was another one in similar vein). DC clearly have changed their approach - I think Damian said in one message that it wasn't so much a change as an "interpretation of something pretty hazy". Oh well you live and learn.

A separate question might be what the hell I'm doing investigating this at 2 in the morning. Don't answer that one...

[Gavin Chipper]

Since I have just made a post about mass nouns elsewhere, I will link to it here as this is the home of the discussion. Sod it - I'll copy the whole post.

http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic. ... 9bcef#p599

Re the point made by the master himself: ALIMONY is indeed a mass noun, although of course that doesn't necessarily mean ALIMONIES wouldn't be allowed (it's a great spot incidentally - I certainly didn't think of it). Any views on whether DC would allow it, if a contestant offered it? If it helps, the full definition of ALIMONY in ODE2r is: "A husband's (or wife's) provision for a spouse after separation or divorce; maintenance"...

I know my NODE is out of date, but I think the principle still applies. Mass nouns are obviously a dodgy issue. But to quote from my NODE:

Occasionally, a mass noun may be used in the plural, with the sense of 'different types of X' or 'portions of X', as in the panel tasted a range of bacons. Such uses are recorded in the New Oxford Dictionary of English only when they are particularly important.

By "recorded" they presumably mean:

[count noun]: used to mark those nouns (and senses of nouns) which can take a plural and can be used with 'a', where this is in contrast with an already stated mass noun. By default, in this dictionary all nouns are to be regarded as count nouns unless otherwise stated.

So obviously even if a word indicated to be a mass noun is not also recorded as a count noun, it might still be "a word", but just not important enough to mention, which is where the confusion of the mass noun rule comes from.

However, there are still clear-cut cases, as I am about to demonstrate. Here's another quote from the old NODE.

Plurals formed by adding -s (or -es when they end in -s, -x, -z, -sh, or soft -ch) are regarded as regular and are not shown.

Other plural forms are given in the dictionary, notably for:

[...]

nouns ending in -y, e.g. fly -> flies

Obviously ALIMONY ends in a Y, so this could be a way of finding an answer. But would the NODE only lists the plurals in these cases if the count noun version of the word is "important enough" to be specified? Well, let's look at a couple of examples:

BRANDY - mass noun, not listed as count noun but plural given as BRANDIES.

So, yes, the NODE will give a plural if it deems it to be a word, regardless of its "importance". So now the acid test.

ALIMONY - mass noun, not listed as count noun, no plural given.

So no, ALIMONIES should not be allowed, as long as the current dictionary is similar to my NODE in this respect. There was a similar discussion about PENURIES on the gevincountdown group, which was allowed despite no plural being listed.

The same acid test exists for words ending in -I and -O.

[Ian Volante]

I very much doubt if anyone would disagree with you, Dez. But Sue's question about whether her reply sets a record is still valid. No idea how you'd go about checking it out though.

The easiest way to check it, and it could be done very quickly, is to prove that it's not a record by finding a very old post and replying to it.

What, like this?

[Sue Sanders]

I very much doubt if anyone would disagree with you, Dez. But Sue's question about whether her reply sets a record is still valid. No idea how you'd go about checking it out though.

The easiest way to check it, and it could be done very quickly, is to prove that it's not a record by finding a very old post and replying to it.

What, like this?

I'm issuing you a brownie point Ian. Or as the French don't call it, un pointe-volante.

[Phil Reynolds]

I very much doubt if anyone would disagree with you, Dez. But Sue's question about whether her reply sets a record is still valid. No idea how you'd go about checking it out though.

The easiest way to check it, and it could be done very quickly, is to prove that it's not a record by finding a very old post and replying to it.

What, like this?

As you've just replied to a post made earlier today, I would have to say no.

[Ian Volante]

The easiest way to check it, and it could be done very quickly, is to prove that it's not a record by finding a very old post and replying to it.

What, like this?

I'm issuing you a brownie point Ian. Or as the French don't call it, un pointe-volante.

Yay, I'm usually utterly pointless!

[Ian Volante]

The easiest way to check it, and it could be done very quickly, is to prove that it's not a record by finding a very old post and replying to it.

What, like this?

As you've just replied to a post made earlier today, I would have to say no.

Damn your eyes and your pedantry!

[Derek Hazell]

Damn your eyes and your pedantry!

Shouldn't that be pedantries?

Oh no, that's 10 letters, so that mass noun plural wouldn't be allowed in any case.

[Charlie Reams]

Maybe Ian read it as:

The easiest way to check it, and it could be done very quickly, is to prove that it's not a record by finding a very old person and replying to them.

Then it all makes sense

[Dinos Sfyris]

PEDANTRIES = PEDESTRIAN

[Derek Hazell]

PEDANTRIES = PEDESTRIAN

Excellent, Dinos!

[Sue Sanders]

PEDANTRIES = PEDESTRIAN

A PEDESTRIAN = IN A PEDERAST

[Howard Somerset]

Maybe Ian read it as:

The easiest way to check it, and it could be done very quickly, is to prove that it's not a record by finding a very old person and replying to them.

Then it all makes sense

Bastard!

[Derek Hazell]

A PEDESTRIAN = IN A PEDERAST

Months without any pederasts, and then two come up at once!