Why use "is compelling evidence" but not "is a compelling evidence"?

[NewHopeR]

Why use "is compelling evidence" but not "is a compelling evidence"?

It seems to me that we should an indefinite article there.

Context:

Interestingly, these ancient elements are often found in similar locations in the mouse and
human genomes (as in this example, where an ARE is present between
gene A and gene B in both human and mouse). Particularly interesting
are examples where the ARE was truncated at a precise base pair at the
time of insertion, losing part of its DNA sequence and all possibility of fu-
ture function (as in the example between gene B and gene C). Finding a
precisely truncated ARE in the same place in both human and mouse
genomes is compelling evidence that this insertion event must have oc-
curred in an ancestor that was common to both the human and the
mouse.

 

[bhaisahab]

Re: Why use "is compelling evidence" but not "is a compelling evidence"?

It seems to me that we should an indefinite article there.

Context:

Interestingly, these ancient elements are often found in similar locations in the mouse and
human genomes (as in this example, where an ARE is present between
gene A and gene B in both human and mouse). Particularly interesting
are examples where the ARE was truncated at a precise base pair at the
time of insertion, losing part of its DNA sequence and all possibility of fu-
ture function (as in the example between gene B and gene C). Finding a
precisely truncated ARE in the same place in both human and mouse
genomes is compelling evidence that this insertion event must have oc-
curred in an ancestor that was common to both the human and the
mouse.

No, "evidence" is uncountable.

 

[NewHopeR]

Re: Why use "is compelling evidence" but not "is a compelling evidence"?

No, "evidence" is uncountable.

Then why we could have "evidences"?
eg.
Without any neurology evidences, he claimed that most of people only uses 15 % of their brain.

 

[bhaisahab]

Re: Why use "is compelling evidence" but not "is a compelling evidence"?

Then why we could have "evidences"?
eg.
Without any neurology evidences, he claimed that most of people only uses 15 % of their brain.

Where did you find that?

 

[NewHopeR]

Re: Why use "is compelling evidence" but not "is a compelling evidence"?

Where did you find that?

19,720hits for "Without any evidences" in Google search.

 

[bhaisahab]

Re: Why use "is compelling evidence" but not "is a compelling evidence"?

19,720hits for "Without any evidences" in Google search.

Google is not a good source for correct English. This is a good source: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/evidence

 

[Tdol]

Re: Why use "is compelling evidence" but not "is a compelling evidence"?

Some people are starting to use it in the plural, but for most people is uncountable.

 

[Tdol]

Re: Why use "is compelling evidence" but not "is a compelling evidence"?

19,720hits for "Without any evidences" in Google search.

To put that in perspective, there are 22.1 million for "without any evidence"

 

[david11]

Re: Why use "is compelling evidence" but not "is a compelling evidence"?

Just to add about google's search results, there are 305,000,000 hits for "waters".;-)

 

[Tdol]

Re: Why use "is compelling evidence" but not "is a compelling evidence"?

Just to add about google's search results, there are 305,000,000 hits for "waters".;-)

This a discussion about evidence.

Also, your search is meaningless because it has no context by which to measure it- search for water and see the difference. 90% of uses of the word you have introduced are not plural.

 

[david11]

Re: Why use "is compelling evidence" but not "is a compelling evidence"?

This a discussion about evidence.

Also, your search is meaningless because it has no context by which to measure it- search for water and see the difference. 90% of uses of the word you have introduced are not plural.

You got me wrong. I just wanted to support bhaisahab's point that Google is not a good source for correct English. So, I used waters as example because everyone knows water does not take plural form and how weird it would be to use it so but still It has so much hits in Google and I wanted to show it.

 

[SoothingDave]

Re: Why use "is compelling evidence" but not "is a compelling evidence"?

You can speak of the territorial waters of a nation.

 

[Barb_D]

Re: Why use "is compelling evidence" but not "is a compelling evidence"?

Actually we do use the word "waters" - Internationa waters, dangerous waters, etc. to mean "an area of the sea."

Additionally, just as we say "I'd like a coffee" at a restaurant to mean "a cup of coffee" you can say "three waters, two Cokes, and a coffee, please" to mean "three glasses of water, two glasses of Coke, and one cup of coffee."

 

[david11]

Re: Why use "is compelling evidence" but not "is a compelling evidence"?

Actually we do use the word "waters" - Internationa waters, dangerous waters, etc. to mean "an area of the sea."

Additionally, just as we say "I'd like a coffee" at a restaurant to mean "a cup of coffee" you can say "three waters, two Cokes, and a coffee, please" to mean "three glasses of water, two glasses of Coke, and one cup of coffee."

I didn't know that. Thank you, I have learnt a new thing today.

(I put the discussion of water and waters to rest here because I don't want to hijack the original question of this thread as you many times asked me not to ).