Are noodles and fries countable?

[tulipflower]

Are 'noodles' and 'fries' countable?
Can we say any word having plural marker 's' or'es' is countable?

 

[tedmc]

Each by itself is not countable, but is countable as a type. Similarly, you have "sauce" and "sauces".

 

[Piscean]

Each by itself is not countable, but is countable as a type.

What does that mean?

 

[emsr2d2]

"Noodles" is the plural of the countable singular "noodle". "Fries" is the plural of the countable singular "fry". You can count each individual noodle and each individual fry. It's not usually necessary to use the singular with these particular foodstuffs.

 

[Tarheel]

That's two different questions. Noodles and fries are both countable, but counting either one is something people rarely if ever do. You can, for example, have just one or two fries left in an order of fries.

If you want to know if something is countable ask yourself if you can have one of it.

I'm not sure I understand the second question. Just because a word ends in "s" that doesn't mean it's a plural of something.

 

[Piscean]

Can we say any word having plural marker 's' or'es' is countable?

No. There are a number of uncountable plural nouns, including arms (= weapons), clothes remains, jeans.

 

[jutfrank]

There are a number of uncountable plural nouns, including arms (= weapons), clothes remains, jeans.

Could you explain what makes you consider the word 'clothes', for example, as uncountable?

 

[Piscean]

There is no singular form *clothe. We can have neither one clothe nor two clothes.

 

[jutfrank]

There is no singular form *clothe. We can have neither one clothe nor two clothes.

Right, but it isn't uncountable. It's plural. You can have 'not many clothes' but you can't have 'not much clothes'.

 

[Tarheel]

@jutfrank Can you have one clothe or two clothes?

 

[Piscean]

Right, but it isn't uncountable. It's plural. You can have 'not many clothes' but you can't have 'not much clothes'.

In that case, the traditional uncountable nouns aren't uncountable. They're singular.. You can have 'not much information' but you can't have 'not many information'.

 

[Piscean]

ps. Swan (2016. §120.50 notes;

Some uncountable nouns are plural.They have no singular forms with the same meaning, and cannot normally be used with numbers.
I've bought the groceries. (BUT NOT ... a grocery. OR ... (three groceries.)

 

[jutfrank]

In that case, the traditional uncountable nouns aren't uncountable. They're singular.

Yes. For me, at least, all uncountable nouns are by definition singular, conceptually speaking, because they cannot be divided up. That doesn't necessarily mean they're all singular in form.

The news is on. [plural form, singular concept]
*The news are on.

It's the conceptual sense of plurality that governs, say verb agreement, which is why we can say things like:

The police are coming. [singular form, plural concept]

ps. Swan (2016. §120.50 notes;

Some uncountable nouns are plural. They have no singular forms with the same meaning, and cannot normally be used with numbers.
I've bought the groceries. (BUT NOT ... a grocery. OR ... (three groceries.)

If you're going to say that 'groceries' and 'clothes' are uncountable, I think you should mention by what measures you're talking about. This becomes an academic question of definition. What is countability? Some people think that if something is not able to be counted into one, two, threes, then it can't be countable and therefore must be uncountable. I wouldn't go along with that.

Some words just don't fit neatly into either count noun or non-count class. The word clothes is one of these problem words. You can have 'many clothes', but not 'much clothes', and you can't have two or three clothes. That's a problem for classification.

 

[Piscean]

Some people think that if something is not able to be counted into one, two, threes, then it can't be countable and therefore must be uncountable. I wouldn't go along with that.

Swan and I (and others) do. You (and others) don't. I think we'll have to agree to differ.

 

[jutfrank]

Swan and I (and others) do. You (and others) don't. I think we'll have to agree to differ.

I think you and I probably should, but linguists don't have to. Alternatively, they can bat it out and come up with a better idea of what we actually mean when we say a noun is uncountable.

 

[emsr2d2]

My students in Madrid always assumed that any noun ending in "s" must automatically be plural and countable. I found that the only thing I could really tell them is that some nouns ending in "s" are always singular and some are always plural. With the plural ones, the only way to make them countable is to add words, ie "scissors are" but "a pair of scissors is", even if you're holding just one object in your hand.
There is nothing you can do to the word "clothes" to make it countable. You'd have to change it to "pieces/items of clothing" and that's just too much of a change to work with the explanation.