Hi all,
Here is ONE small writing tip that could be helpful. I have seen a number of cases of writing where the author seemed confused between 'amount' - and - 'number'. For example; "A large amount of trees are cut each year to make paper." This example fails - MY - good grammar evaluation. Why? Because, even though the number of trees is EXTREMELY large, the fact that 'trees' are theoretically a countable quantity, means the statement should read; "A large number of trees..." (Maybe a more robust adjective would be appropriate? But that is another story.) A further example; There are coins on a table. It doesn't matter whether you just tossed out what you had in your jeans pocket or if it is the collection from three days of arcade games that was dumped there. The correct way to refer to them is as the 'number' of coins on the table, conversely there is an 'amount' of money on the table, again regardless of the 'number' of coins. 'Money' is NOT countable in the same sense as 'dollars' are. (Notice, 'money' here uses the singular form of verb, 'is', where-as the word 'dollars' requires the plural form 'are'.)
Hint hint, even the vast AMOUNT of money in the USA annual budget is always described as a NUMBER of dollars. Ok so it is in the TRILIONS of dollars, but a devastatingly vast number of 'bean counters' have to account for every penny of that gargantuan amount of money. (at least in theory?)
There are untold NUMBERS of stars in the vast AMOUNT of space this universe holds. Just because I can not count the number of stars, does not mean they couldn't theoretically BE counted. On the other hand 'space' is an uncountable quality in and of itself, even though when it is measured the units of volume CAN be counted.
The NUMBER of atoms in the AMOUNT of matter that makes up the universe is FAR beyond my imagination.
'People' are countable, even to the population of the Earth, so always use 'number' of people. (Never 'amount' of people)
To sum up: If the quantity is, even only theoretically, countable use 'number' to describe it. If the quantity has no countable quality use 'amount'.
Confused yet? I would be MORE than willing to give my opinion on any questionable usage.
with love,
Hope
oh, and...
When to use 'much' and when is 'many' required? They follow the same guide-lines as 'amount' and 'number'. 'Much' is used with uncountable terms in the same way that "amount' is used. 'Many' is used for 'numbers' of items.
with love,
HER
Once in a while I bare my soul, more often my soles bear me.
and now ...
... for a short lecture on the difference between 'less' and 'few' :) You are right of course, Hope.
Your (very) occasional editor/proof reader
Robi
An heartfelt token of appreciation
Any amount of appreciation should be shown by the great number of authors here.
Or, as they say if they are German, French, Italian, etc etc etc, trying to speak English: These informations are very valuable.
Thank you for this - seriously.
Joolz
I've been thinking about this
Having exposure to Middle Eastern, UK, and Alien folk has well and truly changed my smug American English. In commentary, I can see that correct American English would perhaps be most proper. However, in dialogue where I am trying to portray someone from Saudi Arabia, the UK, or the planet Zenon, it becomes problematic to use proper English without losing some of the realism, in my opinion.
I have been thinking a lot lately about word choices in my stories. And, in my own speech I still lapse into Middle Eastern speech patterns in a way so pronounced as to cause the person I am talking to to ask what country I am from. It is relatively simple to portray that I am from Saudi Arabia by simply saying beeple for people and bepsi for pepsi. Plus there are a few rolled "R" sounds and voila, people think you are Saudi. :) Of course, I look either Northern European, or Alien, so must wear Niqab.
A few years ago, a Punjabi woman from the North of London stayed with me for three months and when she left to return to the UK, she left me her accent as a gift. For an all too brief few months I had a perfect London accent and could not break out of it. However, in time America began to pollute and defame my treasured proper Queen's English. :(
Perhaps the next time I get ready to publish something, I shall ask you to give it a light read, though I have already, reluctantly, enlisted the help of an editor.
Gwen
Yepper! :D For realistic dialog . . .
it is important to remember that regular people do not speak in proper English all or even most of the time.
Neva mind how uz Pixzies an Gnomeyz prenounze tings! :p
*giggles*
~Hypatia >i< ..:::
Help...
/me shut down from grammar poisoning.
Thanks for the pointer. I think I may have made the same mistake a few times.
Mass Nouns
Nouns denoting something that can't be counted are called 'mass nouns'. Others are known as 'count nouns'.
Some nouns fall into both categories.
I made coffee.
I ordered three coffees.
I once saw a chalkboard outside a bar in Durham advertising FREE DRINK. Underneath, in much smaller lettering, was written 'with every meal purchased before 7pm'.
I think they knew what they were doing.
Not so quick
Granted, most usage writers woodenly quote the mass versus count noun distinction, and it's correct most of the time. However:
I have six grains of sand. (count)
I have a yard full of sand. (mass)
The Sands of Mars (title of a novel by Arthur C. Clarke) (count)
Using your definition, sand is clearly a count noun, since it consists of discrete pieces (grains). Yet I can't say "I have six sands," which would be correct if it was really a count noun. I have to say "I have six grains of sand," which shoves sand into a prepositional phrase. And I would hesitate to claim that Sir Arthur made a mistake by using the plural of sand, while he rather obviously isn't suggesting that anyone get out of their spaceship and count the grains.
Sand, Sand grains and sands
Sand is not countable, it is a mass of sand. In your 'grains of sand' example is isn't the sand that is countable but the grains. Lastly the 'sands' example is, in my opinion, a bit of poetic licence and a bit of sand definition, for want of a better term.
The normal plural of fish is fish, but when one speaks of the various types of fish in the ocean, they are often referred to as 'the many fishes in the sea.' Similarly the various types of sand in the world could be referred to as 'the sands of the world.'
I hope this satisfies you about sand.
with love,
HER
Once in a while I bare my soul, more often my soles bear me.
NOW, if you had used 'rock' as your example...
The answer would be a little more involved. Rock can be either a mass OR a countable noun, depending on its context. There are a certain NUMBER of rocks in a farmers field. (It might be a VERY large number, though, if it is poor farmland.) on the other hand there is an enormous amount of rock in Earth's mantle. Here is an even more confusing example; There is a GREAT amount of rock in the Great Pyramid of Giza, and, there are a GREAT number of rocks in the Great Pyramid of Giza. Two statements, both true, different contexts.
with love,
HER
Once in a while I bare my soul, more often my soles bear me.
Salt is the same, while most
Salt is the same, while most people will only think of table salt, a chemist will know that there are many salts.
I forgot to use the line...
I'm glad I didn't get stuck in your sand trap.
with love,
HER
Once in a while I bare my soul, more often my soles bear me.
Sands
Sands is a geographical term, it looks plural and takes a plural form of the verb but it's like pants or scissors. :) If a locale like southern New Mexico has many sands, it means it has many landforms that are all called sands individually. You don't have a place called the Alamagordo Sand. :)
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Sands and a 'Yard'
Alamagordo Sand? Ah, you probably mean the place more commonly known as 'White Sands'.
Fantastic place. (I'll be there in approx 4 weeks for a spot of Photography)
To confuse the conversation a bit more,
A 'yard of sand' can also mean a Cubic Yard of Sand which is a measure of volume. We (here in the UK) now use a 'Metre of Sand', i.e. 1 cubic metre.
I do agree with Gwen about the affect people can have on your own language and vocabulary. I lived in N.H. for almost two years. I picked up a lot of colloquial language that took me quite a while to shake off.
Since then I have spent an awful lot of time with people who's first (or even second) language is not English.
by neccessity, you modify your choice of words so that the people you are interacting with can understand you. My ex used to tell me off for speaking Russian English when I returned from a business trip. After a while, you don't even know that you are doing it.
Portraying this in text is very, very difficult.
Sometimes it is easier not to try.
Certain word omissions.
It is interesting that in speakers who use English as a second language. Words like are, is, a, the, and several others are often left out by Arabic, and Spanish Speakers. Of course Spanish has about 1/3 Arabic words in it due to the occupation of the Moors.
I often find myself leaving or misusing "That".
Often I find myself leaving out or ...
And, having loved writing in school, but being totally inept at sentence structure, it seems I am still handicapped. :)
The grammar is fairly complex...
...because dollars (and most other things) can be conceived of in many ways.
There is a million-dollar pile of twenty-dollar bills on the table, which is a large amount of money, but the individual bills are all green.
Even trees can be (and often are) counted as board-feet of lumber,
There are approximately 10^22 to 10^24 stars in the observable Universe, which translates very roughly into the Universe that we can see, at least theoretically. There may or may not be pieces of the Universe that we cannot see, despite the fact that we may be able to infer their existence. The very largest numbers might well be slippery things, perhaps not even proper numbers at all.
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
Big numbers and high numbers
What about big numbers, high numbers, and large numbers? Which is correct?
Also, massive numbers and enormous numbers are sometimes seen. They cannot be both, can they?
And what about inordinate numbers? Isn't that an oxymoron? (Ditto for "random numbers" -- a number can never be random!)
One last question: are plain numbers used only by the Amish?