responsibility vs life vs time (countability)

[Alexey86]

The origin of life on Earth is unknown. (OK)
The origin of a life on Earth is unknown. (Not OK)

We had a good time. (OK)
We had good time. (Not OK)

I feel a responsibility for my ancestors when I play. (OK)
I feel responsibility for my ancestors when I play. (OK)


Why can responsibility be used both countably and uncountably in the same context, while time and life can't?

(This thread is related to https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/...inite-article-before-quot-responsibility-quot)
(Maybe it should be moved to General Language Discussions)

 

[GoesStation]

(Maybe it should be moved to General Language Discussions)

Done.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

The origin of life on Earth is unknown. (OK)
The origin of a life on Earth is unknown. (Not OK)

It's possible to know the origin of one life. My life originated at Lutheran Hospital in New York City. It's impossible to know the exact origin of life in general.

We had a good time. (OK)
We had good time. (Not OK)

You're referring to exactly one good time. That's countable. You could also have some good times. Those are also countable.

I feel a responsibility to my ancestors when I play. (OK)
I feel responsibility to my ancestors when I play. (OK)

It depends on whether you're thinking of one particular responsibility (maybe you made a promise at your grandmother's deathbed) or a general sense of responsibility, an overall sense of duty to your family.

Why can responsibility be used both countably and uncountably in the same context, while time and life can't?

Those weren't the same contexts.

This might be a good question to return to in a few years.

 

[Alexey86]

It's impossible to know the exact origin of life in general.

I think scientists would disagree. If they thought it's impossible, they wouldn't have been trying to solve this problem for decades.

It depends on whether you're thinking of one particular responsibility or a general sense of responsibility, an overall sense of duty to your family.

Why can't we apply this to time and say, "We had good time" referring to it as a mass noun? We can do that to bread: "I ate bread yesterday" vs "I ate a slice of bread yesterday."

Those weren't the same contexts.

They're the same in terms of the linguistic context around the article: "I feel [zero/a] responsibility to my ancestors when I play."

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I think scientists would disagree. If they thought it's impossible, they wouldn't have been trying to solve this problem for decades.

Let's keep it real. TODAY it's impossible.

Why can't we apply this to time and say, "We had good time" referring to it as a mass noun?

Because in the context of one or more shared activities, it wouldn't make sense. Uncountable time isn't good or bad and can't be had. It's just time.

We can do that to bread: "I ate bread yesterday" vs "I ate a slice of bread yesterday."

Yes. And we can say "I ate the bread yesterday."

They're the same in terms of the linguistic context around the article: "I feel [zero/a] responsibility to my ancestors when I play."

Right. That's why I said the contexts are different. You're not comparing similar ideas.

You're welcome to do it your way. But for the reasons I gave you (and for reasons others gave you in Rachel's thread), it won't sound natural. It will sound like you're still learning English.

 

[Alexey86]

You're welcome to do it your way. But for the reasons I gave you (and for reasons others gave you in Rachel's thread), it won't sound natural. It will sound like you're still learning English.

My question is not about usage. I know that "We had good time" is incorrect and I'm not going to use it. I'm exploring countability from the point of view of semantics and syntax.

Uncountable time isn't good or bad and can't be had.

It can be had in "Do you have time?"

 

[jutfrank]

Why can responsibility be used both countably and uncountably in the same context, while time and life can't?

I don't think your question's right. Plus I don't know what you mean by 'OK' and 'Not OK'.

Strictly speaking, no word can ever be used countably and uncountably in the same context because that would necessarily mean different contexts. The context is what tells us whether a word is used countably or uncountably (the presence/absence of an article). I assume you're talking about the two different contexts of the two sentences in post #1. These use different senses of the word responsibility. The context doesn't affect this.

Who says time and life can't be be used both countably and uncountably in otherwise similar contexts? That's not right. Where did you get that idea from?

The thing I think you're not getting is the difference in meaning between countable and uncountable nouns. Context is just a way of making meaning comprehensible. Sometimes a countable/uncountable use of a noun may not make sense in a certain sentence. Whether it does or not depends on the meaning of the utterance as a whole.

 

[Alexey86]

I don't think your question's right. Plus I don't know what you mean by 'OK' and 'Not OK'.

I mean how sentences sound to the hearer. Both examples with responsibility sound OK and make sense unlike have good time or origin of a life.

Who says time and life can't be be used both countably and uncountably in otherwise similar contexts? That's not right. Where did you get that idea from?

I should've clarified that I meant linguistic context, just words that precede and follow an article: We had [zero/a] good time.

The thing I think you're not getting is the difference in meaning between countable and uncountable nouns.

Between some of such nouns. The problem with responsibility is that it's strictly uncountable in Russian like advice in English (which is countable in Russian). When we want to express the idea of countability we use duty/obligation/commitment. Can I think of a responsibility that way?

 

[jutfrank]

Between some of such nouns.

I mean between all of them. Difference in countability is a difference in meaning.

When we want to express the idea of countability [in Russian] we use duty/obligation/commitment. Can I think of a responsibility that way?

Yes. The differences between:

responsibility/a responsibility
obligation/an obligation
duty/a duty
commitment/a commitment

are essentially equivalent.

 

[Alexey86]

I mean between all of them. Difference in countability is a difference in meaning.

I agree about the difference, but why do you stress all? I have no problem with countability most of the time.

Yes. The differences between:

responsibility/a responsibility
obligation/an obligation
duty/a duty
commitment/a commitment

are essentially equivalent.

So, when "responsibility" is specified by the "to do something" part, it's countable. For example, the article in "I have a responsibility to protect these people" is required, right?

 

[jutfrank]

I agree about the difference, but why do you stress all?

I mean that the minimal difference of countability between two noun phrases is a difference in meaning. What I'm saying is responsibility and a responsibility have different meanings (word meanings).

So, when "responsibility" is specified by the "to do something" part, it's countable.

Well, the 'to do something' part makes no difference to the basic meaning of the noun itself. I'm talking about the concept that is denoted by the noun phrase. Any context serves merely to make the speaker's utterance as a whole more comprehensible.

For example, the article in "I have a responsibility to protect these people" is required, right?

Well, I wouldn't say it's 'required' but yes, that thought is well expressed with a countable noun. Phrased in jutfrank terms: the speaker meaning that the speaker wishes to express is well served here by the countable use of the word responsibility. Also, equally importantly, the hearer will understand something about the way the speaker conceives of the noun by his countable use of it, which will contribute to the understanding of the utterance as a whole.

I hope that makes some sense. I've just read it back and I think it does. Let me know if so/not.

 

[Alexey86]

Well, I wouldn't say it's 'required' but yes, that thought is well expressed with a countable noun.

What's the difference between well/poorly expressed and grammatical/ungrammatical? If I said, "I gave him a good advice," what would you call it?

I've found the following examples with obligation:

1. "Board members of the Bundesbank are under obligation to show restraint in their political activities." (The New York Times)
2. "Whatever Mr. Bush's choice, Mr. Dukakis said, Mr. Gore is still under obligation to pick someone who could step into the job of president." (The New York Times)

3. "At some point, he began to feel that he was under an obligation to marry her." (The New Yorker)
4. "He is under an obligation to manage the business so that profits are maximised." (The Guardian - Opinion)

I can't understand why obligation is uncountable in the first two. Are they well or poorly expressed?

 

[emsr2d2]

If I said no comma here "I gave him a good advice", what would you call it?

I would call it wrong/incorrect [because it's ungrammatical].

 

[jutfrank]

What's the difference between well/poorly expressed and grammatical/ungrammatical?

I'm using 'well expressed' to mean that the thoughts in the minds of the speaker and listener bear a good resemblance. I'm not talking about grammar. If I say something and you understand very well what I mean, we can say my thought was well expressed.

I can't understand why obligation is uncountable in the first two. Are they well or poorly expressed?

You seem to have misunderstood what I meant by 'well expressed'. See above.

Numbers 1 and 2 are fine. I think I've already answered why obligation is uncountable there. Again, my answer is very simple: because that's what the speaker means. I'll say again the point I'm trying (badly) to get across: A difference in countability is a difference in meaning.

In my opinion, all this context you keep providing is serving both to unnecessarily complicate the issue and to confuse you. I believe you need to get to the very basics of what countability is, and then work down from there.

 

[Alexey86]

A difference in countability is a difference in meaning

OK, I see it's not a grammar issue. I'll try to simplify things and clarify my difficulty with the following example:

Suppose somebody tells you "I want to show you a picture of a broken glass", and then you see this:
I think you would be confused expecting to see something like this:

Can you think of any situation where you would be confused either by "I'm under an obligation to protect these people" or "I'm under obligation to protect these people"?

 

[jutfrank]

I really like your glass example because I think it illustrates the idea of countability very well (a theory of things versus stuff). Though to be picky, I wouldn't be 'confused'—perhaps just surprised.

Can you think of any situation where you would be confused either by "I'm under an obligation to protect these people" or "I'm under obligation to protect these people"?

No, those utterances wouldn't be confusing or surprising at all. I don't follow your point here.

 

[Alexey86]

No, those utterances wouldn't be confusing or surprising at all. I don't follow your point here.

I'm not just talking about the utterances, neither of which is surprising or confusing by itself, but about the utterances in a real life situation. We can easily imagine a situation where a broken glass would be surprising. Can you imagine situations where each of the obligation utterances would confuse or surprise you in terms of countability? I honestly don't know how to put it more simply.

 

[jutfrank]

Sorry, I'm completely lost now. Maybe other members can answer.

 

[Alexey86]

I feel helpless. I don't understand why you're lost.

 

[Alexey86]

No.

Isn't that surprising? (Please, don't say "No".)

Two observations on countability:

1. I've found numerous examples of "to be under obligation to do something" and not a single one of "to have obligation to do something".
2. I've found no examples of "to have obligation/duty to do something" and several ones of "to have responsibility to do something".

I can't explain this difference.