OT: A quality sake
Jasondeb...@gmail.com
I was just wondering why it is acceptable to say, "This is a quality
sake" (the Japanese drink), when we wouldn't say, "This is a sake."
Why does adding the adjective "quality" make it acceptable to use "a"
with a mass noun like sake?
Yours puzzledly
Jason
Steve Venti
> Why does adding the adjective "quality" make it acceptable to use "a"
> with a mass noun like sake?
Because what you are implying is that there are a number of different
"quality sakes," and that this is *one* of them.
--
Steve Venti
The source of all unhappiness is other people.
--Wally
Jasondeb...@gmail.com
But it wouldn't sound right to say, "This is a pure water" would it?
(For example, if you were comparing various bottles of water).
Jason
Steve Venti
> But it wouldn't sound right to say, "This is a pure water" would it?
Given an appropriate context, it would sound perfectly smashing.
I suggest you google the string "is a pure water," and confirm this
for yourself.
Jasondeb...@gmail.com
Yes, you're quite right! A lot of googits for "a pure water."
I don't know, this phrasing just had me stumped, a kind of mental
block.
Thanks for the input.
Jason
Jim Lockhart
Why not?
People recommending products say stuff like that all the time:
"This is a quality wine."
"This is a quality brandy."
"This is a quality translation."
Are you a quality English speaker?ingly yours,
--Jim Lockhart
Julian Wayne
How about something like "This is a sake with a rich history"?
(Obviously, you could just say "This sake has a rich history".)
I don't know if there is a hard-and-fast rule about this, but it seems
that you can put an article in front of an uncountable noun to
indicate that you are talking about a specific type (i.e., "a sake" =
"a type of sake").
Julian Wayne
Mark Spahn
Shinya Suzuki
> Thus, "sake" is ordinarily a mass noun, but in
> a sentence like "Ordinarily I hate sake, but this is a sake I actually like",
> the meaning is "this type of sake", so it becomes a count noun
> and is used with "a". The fact that an adjective (noun-as-adjective)
> like "quality" is used is irrelevant.
It IS relevant. The "countability" of a primarily noncount noun may be
enhanced either by premodification (eg, "quality" in the OP's case) or
postmodification (eg, [a sake] "I actually like" in your example).
A grammar book of mine has this to say (the layout/numbering has been
modified for clarity by SS):
<Quote>
(ii) the noun is premodified and/or postmodified; and, generally
speaking, the greater the amount of modification, the greater the
acceptability of a/an. ...
She played the oboe with
(1) *a sensitivity. [SS note: * indicates unacceptability]
(2) sensitivity.
However, a would become more acceptable than zero if the noun were
modified:
She played the oboe with
(3) (a) charming sensitivity.
(4) a sensitivity that delighted the critics.
<Unquote>
> Other uses of what are ordinarily mass nouns as count nouns:
> "the love that dares not speak its name"
Could you, Mark, or anyone else, explain to me why this "love" is a
count noun rather than a (singular) noncount noun?
Shinya Suzuki
And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you give.
-- Lennon & McCartney
Neil Ramsay
> > "the love that dares not speak its name"
>
> Could you, Mark, or anyone else, explain to me why this
> "love" is a count noun rather than a (singular) noncount noun?
There are different types of love and this line from a famous poem was
refering to homosexual love. See the following link for more details.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/364900.html
Regards,
Neil
Julian Wayne
> > Other uses of what are ordinarily mass nouns as count nouns:
> > "the love that dares not speak its name"
>
> Could you, Mark, or anyone else, explain to me why this "love" is a
> count noun rather than a (singular) noncount noun?
I see what you're getting at, but I still think that "love" is a count
noun in this case. "The love" is short for "the type of love" (in this
case, homosexual love) and "type" is countable. It would also be
possible to say "a love that dares not speak its name" to convey
roughly the same meaning, only the implication with "the" is that
there is ony one type of love that dares not speak its name.
Julian Wayne
Shinya Suzuki
> > > "the love that dares not speak its name"
> >
> > Could you, Mark, or anyone else, explain to me why this
> > "love" is a count noun rather than a (singular) noncount noun?
>
> There are different types of love and this line from a famous poem was
> refering to homosexual love. See the following link for more details.
Hmmm, there are different types of furniture, but that doesn't change it
to a count noun (eg, a furniture), does it?
Shinya Suzuki
Shinya Suzuki
> I see what you're getting at, but I still think that "love" is a count
> noun in this case. "The love" is short for "the type of love" (in this
> case, homosexual love) and "type" is countable.
How about "a/the type of furniture"? Is this "furniture" a count noun?
> It would also be
> possible to say "a love that dares not speak its name" to convey
> roughly the same meaning, only the implication with "the" is that
> there is ony one type of love that dares not speak its name.
It's obvious that "love" in "a love that dares not speak its name" is a
count noun. But again, "furniture" in "the only type of furniture we had ..."
seems to me a noncount noun.
Shinya Suzuki @ sorry, time to sleep
Julian Wayne
> It's obvious that "love" in "a love that dares not speak its name" is a
> count noun. But again, "furniture" in "the only type of furniture we had ..."
> seems to me a noncount noun.
One type of furniture, two types of furniture, three types of
furniture...
"Furniture" is a noncount noun but "type of furniture" is a count noun
(phrase).
Julian Wayne
Mark Spahn
James Sparks
> "I am the Love that dare not speak its name."
> Why the verb is "dare" and not "dares" is something that
> I am even less able to explain than whether Love is here
> a mass noun or a count noun.
I think it's just that to dare is an exceptional verb. Webster's notes
that the present singular 3rd person form may be either dare or dares.
The author of the above doubtless thought it sounded better without the S.
James Sparks
Mark Spahn
Alan Siegrist
The form "he dare" appears to have originally been the grammatically correct
one, although it sounds obsolete now.
See:
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=dare
| ⇒ The present tense, I dare, is really an old past tense, so that the
| third person is he dare, but the form he dares is now often used, and will
| probably displace the obsolescent he dare, through grammatically as
| incorrect as he shalls or he cans.
>
> James Sparks
>
>
Steve Venti
> It IS relevant. The "countability" of a primarily noncount noun may be
> enhanced
I quite disagree with this. What on earth is the "countability of a
noncount noun" supposed to mean?
> A grammar book of mine has this to say . . .
> She played the oboe with
> (1) *a sensitivity. [SS note: * indicates unacceptability]
> (2) sensitivity.
The problem with this example is that, given the proper CONTEXT, "She
played the oboe with a sensitivity" is perfectly intelligible. How is
"She played with a sensitivity" any different from "She played with a
flair?" Surely you're not going to expect me to believe that "flair"
is a countable noun, are you?
Jon Johanning
> The problem with this example is that, given the proper CONTEXT, "She
> played the oboe with a sensitivity" is perfectly intelligible. How is
> "She played with a sensitivity" any different from "She played with a
> flair?" Surely you're not going to expect me to believe that "flair"
> is a countable noun, are you?
"She played with a sensitivity that amazed her audience, considering
that she was only two and a half."
I don't know whether "sensitivity" is countable or uncountable here,
but it makes perfect sense. I happen to be one of those who believe
that linguistic expressions often have meanings that are hard for
strict grammarians to classify with their rigid categories. The
speakers of the language lead the way, and grammarians hobble along
behind as best they can.
Jon Johanning // jjoha...@igc.org
__________________________
Belinda: Ay, but you know we must return good for evil.
Lady Brute: That may be a mistake in the translation.
-- Sir John Vanbrugh: The Provok’d Wife (1697), I.i.
Doreen Simmons
the noun is being defined or classified in some way by an adjective or adjectival phrase/clause.
This is not the same as a simple descrption.
So, "This is good sake" and "This sake is rather sweet" are simple descrptions,
but "This is a sake of distinction" and "Here is a sake that goes well with fish" are defining or classifying,
and the article is needed. Likewise with a definite article: "This is the sake I was telling you about."
The problem with a lot of self-styled grammarians is that they find it difficult to think outside the box.
The box, in this case, is using 'countable/uncountable' as if that is the only way of looking at this particular problem.
Doreen, a force to be reckoned with ;-}
Doreen Simmons
jz8d...@asahi-net.or.jp
Shinya Suzuki
> Shinya Suzuki wrote:
> > It IS relevant. The "countability" of a primarily noncount noun may be
> > enhanced
>
> I quite disagree with this. What on earth is the "countability of a
> noncount noun" supposed to mean?
You disagree with the statement you don't understand? <g> What I tried
to describe was the conditions under which a primarily or normally
noncount noun is used with a/an.
> > A grammar book of mine has this to say . . .
> > She played the oboe with
> > (1) *a sensitivity. [SS note: * indicates unacceptability]
> > (2) sensitivity.
>
> The problem with this example is that, given the proper CONTEXT, "She
> played the oboe with a sensitivity" is perfectly intelligible.
Yes, but what I quoted above is correct without context.
> How is
> "She played with a sensitivity" any different from "She played with a
> flair?" Surely you're not going to expect me to believe that "flair"
> is a countable noun, are you?
Well, (a) "flair" is a countable noun by definition. As is often the
case, the OED provides a most concise and explicit definition of
"countable": d. Of a noun: that can form a plural or be used with the
indefinite article.
Shinya Suzuki
Steve Venti
> You disagree with the statement you don't understand?
No, I disagree with the premise of a statement that was both poorly
written and unintelligible. Reread what you wrote, and if you still
think that the phrase "countability of a noncount noun" makes sense, I
suggest that you look up the meaning of the word "oxymoron."
> Well, (a) "flair" is a countable noun by definition.
Is it really? Well, I challenge you to find an example of it used in
the plural, but I must also counsel you not to waste too much time
doing so.
Tom Donahue
> > Well, (a) "flair" is a countable noun by definition.
>
> Is it really? Well, I challenge you to find an example of it used in
> the plural,
Never one to pass up a challenge <g>.
The Flairs were an American DooWop group. Here is one of their songs,
"Gettin High", the B side of a 1954 release with lead vocals by Richard
Berry (who deserves a place in the rock 'n roll hall of fame as the
composer of "Louie, Louie").
www.doowopcafe.net/jukes/billy_vera.html
--
Tom Donahue @back to work
Marc Adler
>> Shinya Suzuki wrote:
>> Well, (a) "flair" is a countable noun by definition.
>
> Is it really? Well, I challenge you to find an example of it used in
> the plural, but I must also counsel you not to waste too much time
> doing so.
The definition was: "Of a noun: that can form a plural or be used with
the indefinite article."
"A flair [for...]" is perfectly normal usage, so it's a countable noun.
Marc Adler
Benjamin Barrett
> The definition was: "Of a noun: that can form a plural or be used with
> the indefinite article."
>
> "A flair [for...]" is perfectly normal usage, so it's a countable noun.
>
* He has three flairs for cooking: stir frying, baking, and broiling.
* She had two flairs in life before the accident: skiing and software
programming.
* (possibly ???) They added another flair to their repertoire.
* My first flair in selecting plants is with perennials.
* He lost his flair for mountain climbing, but developed two new flairs.
* The twins were born with flairs for math.
(With asterisks meaning unacceptable) it seems that either flair has to
be taken as a countable noun that does not allow counting or else so
tightly bound to the idiom "have a flair (for X)" that it is outside the
realm of normal noun classification. BB
Marc Adler
> (With asterisks meaning unacceptable) it seems that either flair has to
> be taken as a countable noun that does not allow counting or else so
The definition was "Of a noun: that can form a plural _*OR*_ be used
with the indefinite article." (Emphasis mine. <g>)
Flair can be used with the indefinite article, ergo, it's countable.
That's all Shinya was saying, I think. If you argue against the above
definition, you're arguing with the folks at the OED.
Marc Adler
Benjamin Barrett
partially because it was compiled based on limited evidence. It is
evidence that informs definitions, not the other way around. Inevitably
there are a number of items that don't fit definitions that have been
constructed, so definitions have to be revised. That's why linguistics
is a science.
In the case of "flair", we can ask whether it's useful to include it and
other nouns like it in a category of countability. Do you want to talk
about countability because you want to talk about verb agreement? In
that case, perhaps call it a countable noun without a plural form (I'm
98% sure there are others in English). Do you want to talk about
countability because you want to modify it with quantities like 2 and 3?
In that case, perhaps call it a noncount noun that takes the indefinite
article.
In general, if counting is not possible, then probably the
classification name (counting/countable) is wrong and should be changed,
a new category needs to be made, or else the classification system needs
to be totally rethought. Personally, my money's on the latter.
Here, it seems reasonable to say that "flair" acts _like_ a countable
noun for the purpose of verb agreement, but (1) it should be considered
either as outside of the count/noncount classification system or else
(2) it is an atypical member of the count nouns with anomalous
characteristics. BB
Jasondeb...@gmail.com
You might want to check out this link:
If they ever opened another branch somewhere (in Florida), I supposed
there would then be two flairs.
Jason (wore flares in the 70s) De Bonneville
bendooley
He added one or two flairs--a flourish of the wrist, a tip of the hat--
at the end of the performance to wow the audience.
This many not be a standard usage, but I've heard it more than once to
describe ornamental additions to things such as jokes, performances,
etc., and it certainly would pass the sniff test in these parts.
Furthermore, the original meaning of flair is "a scent or smell," i.e.
the flare of a raccoon, which I assume could be used in the plural,
although I don't know if it would take an s or not.
Those who have seen the movie Office Space will also be familiar with
another usage of flair, i.e. a pin, badge or other piece of decorative
jewelry worn to make customers at a restaurant perceive you as
perky :)
Best,
Ben
Benjamin Barrett
can easily be separated from the meaning of knack, but there might be
some crossover of the allowable grammar.
I do recall the use of flair in Office Space and remember the use as
striking me as odd when I first saw the movie. I don't remember now,
though, what the grammatical usage was. My recollection is that it was
like sheep, countable without a plural "s", but I'd have to watch the
movie again to be sure. BB
Alan Siegrist
> I do recall the use of flair in Office Space and remember the use as
> striking me as odd when I first saw the movie. I don't remember now,
> though, what the grammatical usage was. My recollection is that it was
> like sheep, countable without a plural "s", but I'd have to watch the
> movie again to be sure.
I am pretty sure that in the movie they said "pieces of flair" to refer to
the tchotchkes that Joanna the waitress character had to wear.
See:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151804/quotes
| Peter Gibbons: Doesn't it bother you that you have to get up in the
| morning and you have to put on a bunch of pieces of flair?
| Joanna: Yeah, but I'm not about to go in and start taking money from
| the register.
| Peter Gibbons: Well, maybe you should. You know, the Nazis had pieces
| of flair that they made the Jews wear.
In amongst all of the hits on Google where "flairs" appears as a misspelling
for "flares" or "fairs" or where FLAIRS as an acronym for the Florida AI
Research Society, I did find an actual authentic English hit:
http://www.flairsandgraces.co.uk/
| Flairs and Graces Ladies Clothing and Accessories
But just from the Google evidence, I would say that simple errors vastly
outnumber actual uses of the word "flairs" in the plural.
Ben Dooley wrote:
> > Flair is often used in the plural:
Often? Really? That is news to me.
Regards,
Alan Siegrist @ I have a flair for solar flares
Orinda, CA, USA
AlanFS...@Comcast.net
Benjamin Barrett
called, lol.