Singular countable noun

[Glizdka]

Do you think singular countable noun sounds redundant? In my view, only countable nouns can be singular or plural. Uncountable nouns are just... uncountable; they're neither singular nor plural.

​

However, many textbooks I've seen tend to use this wording in the grammar rules they contain: singular countable noun. I guess it's for clarity. A learner might misunderstand what precisely singular means, so they also call it countable to make sure the learner understands exactly what kind of noun the rule is about.

On the other hand, I feel like just saying a noun is singular should be enough, and I shouldn't have to call a singular noun countable, because calling it singular entails it's countable.



What do you think of this wording? Do you use it when you explain grammar rules to your students? Am I wrong in my assumption that singular entails countable?

 

[jutfrank]

Number and countability are two different systems, so no, it isn't redundant. A singular noun may be either countable or uncountable.

What do you think of this wording? Do you use it when you explain grammar rules to your students?

Yep.

Am I wrong in my assumption that singular entails countable?

Yes, very.


I'm not totally sure what mistake you've made but there seems to be a category error. Is it that you're thinking that 'singular' means 'one thing', and one thing therefore must logically be countable? I can't quite follow your reasoning.

A distinction that I think you should make between number and countability is that number is primarily a part of the morphosyntactic system whereas countability is primarily a semantic property, having some morphosyntactic effects.

 

[Glizdka]

Is it that you're thinking that 'singular' means 'one thing', and one thing therefore must logically be countable?

Yes, that would basically be it.

It stems from how the indefinite article attaches to singular countable nouns. I see a/an as a reduced version of one, the same way indefinite articles more obviously look similar to their version of one in other languages around, say German ein, or Spanish un. Because one/a/an doesn't work with uncountable nouns, I can't see why I could call them singular.

There's also the fact that uncountable nouns can never be plural. If there can't be one of it, or multiple of it, it makes me think of uncountable nouns as a completely separate category, independent of countable nouns. I've illustrated how I see it in the graphic in the original post.

So, in my view, we have singular nouns, plural nouns, and uncountable nouns, which are neither singular nor plural.

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, that would basically be it.

Got you. Then you might try instead to think of 'singular' as simply meaning 'not having a plural 's' suffix' and recognise it as a grammatical form rather than having meaning in itself. Any sense of 'oneness' will come from other words (determiners, numerals) in the phrase.

 

[Glizdka]

Got you. Then you might try instead to think of 'singular' as simply meaning 'not having a plural 's' suffix' and recognise it as a grammatical form rather than having meaning in itself. Any sense of 'oneness' will come from other words (determiners, numerals) in the phrase.

Ah, I see. This makes perfect sense! So it should be the other way around. Nouns are either singular or plural. Singular nouns are either countable or uncountable. Plural nouns are only countable. The following graphic could illustrate this:

​

I can't help but notice, however, that this makes me think my question should rather be about countable plural nouns. If plural nouns are necessarily countable, could we skip mentioning that a plural noun is countable in our grammar rules, and just call it a plural noun?

Does countable plural noun sound redundant, then?

Number and countability are two different systems (...). A singular noun may be either countable or uncountable.

A distinction that I think you should make between number and countability is that number is primarily a part of the morphosyntactic system whereas countability is primarily a semantic property, having some morphosyntactic effects.

I think this is where my confusion comes from. Does it mean that I'm trying to look at it more like a semantist than a grammarian?

As a learner, the idea of countability started making sense to me only after I separated uncountability from number altogether. I see uncountable nouns as, let's say, "zero" number. This is why I group nouns into number categories [0], [1], [2+].

I'll try to make peace with the fact that number and countability are two different systems, no matter how uncomfortable I am with this approach.

Side note: Some time ago, I wrote a passage trying to explain what uncountability is like how a physicist would in your typical popular science program, just for fun. I should probably post it on this forum.

 

[jutfrank]

So it should be the other way around. Nouns are either singular or plural. Singular nouns are either countable or uncountable. Plural nouns are only countable. The following graphic could illustrate this:

View attachment 6475
​

I can't help but notice, however, that this makes me think my question should rather be about countable plural nouns. If plural nouns are necessarily countable, could we skip mentioning that a plural noun is countable in our grammar rules, and just call it a plural noun?

Does countable plural noun sound redundant, then?

Yes, now you've got it.

I think this is where my confusion comes from. Does it mean that I'm trying to look at it more like a semantist than a grammarian?

Basically, yes.

Side note: Some time ago, I wrote a passage trying to explain what uncountability is like how a physicist would in your typical popular science program, just for fun. I should probably post it on this forum.

I would love to read and discuss this!