Talk:countable noun

Just wondering, are "that girl" and "this girl" not countable?--Person12 11:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Girl is countable, no matter what phrase it appears in. The existence of that girl and this girl do not show girl to be countable, as that and this can also precede non-count nouns.​—msh210℠ (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

countable noun

[[uncountable noun]]

Sum of parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if it is the reverse of SoP, are countable and uncountable used to describe anything other than nouns within the scope of grammar? I know they can be used on their own, but do those usages imply while eliding the word noun or are they truly independent? - [The]DaveRoss 19:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if they are only used for nouns, you could still say "this noun is uncountable"; you are not bound to saying "uncountable noun". —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 02:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Note, translations could be at mass noun and count noun if these two got deleted. Most of the translations seems to be SoP anyway, I think one of the French ones is wrong to the point where I couldn't get three citations for it. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Unfortunately I don't see how this is keepable under our current CFI. ---> Tooironic 03:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not idiomatic, but I don't see what would be so terribly wrong with keeping the most common collocations for words like countable in this sense. DAVilla 06:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, this may be idiomatic; you can count "money", and it's a noun, but it's not a countable noun (at least, not normally). ---> Tooironic 06:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep or merge. "Count noun," "non-count noun," "countable noun," and "uncountable noun" are very definitely terms used in ESL textbooks, and in the classroom, as well as on Wikipedia The fact that they are essentially professional jargon as far as most native English speakers are concerned does not make them illegitimate. And no, they are not idiomatic. See the Wikipedia article. "Money," isn't a count noun, but "dollar" is. A merge is probably a better idea, but I don't know which would be the better title. "Countable/uncountable" seems to be more common, based on Google, and is definitely more grammatical, but it seems like the official linguistics terminology is "count/non-count." It could be that "count/non-count" is the linguistics term and the one I use in my ESL classes. --Quintucket 06:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge into what? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

{{look}}

• Keep per Talk:free variable: the requisite sense of "countable" only applies to nouns. Moreover, notice the existence of "count noun", a synonym that cannot so easily be declared sum of parts, and is similarly common: google:"countable noun", google:"count noun". What speaks a bit against keeping but is indecisive IMHO is that "countable" is often used in predicative prosition: google:"noun is countable" vs google:"countable noun". --Dan Polansky 17:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

kept due to no consensus -- Liliana • 03:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion debate

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

This was nominated before but it was kept for no consensus. I believe this is countable + noun. If you say "that tree is green", then you imply that it is a "green tree". In the same way, if you say "that noun is countable" you imply that it is a "countable noun". It may be true that countable only has this sense when referring to a noun, but that is still quite different from suggesting that only "countable noun" is a set phrase. —CodeCat 15:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, sounds like a discrete concept to me. You wanna delete transitive verb, present tense, adverbial participle, accusative case, conditional mood, incomplete sentence and resumptive pronoun while you're at it? ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not doubting that it is a discrete concept. However, Wiktionary is about words and idiomatic phrases, Wikipedia is about concepts. —CodeCat 23:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I would make sure countable has a relevant definition and then delete. --WikiTiki89 08:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete, or else why even bother having a definition countable? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete IMO. I also voted to delete "antessive case" (grammatical case that is antessive) and "prime number" (number that is prime) — and both were ultimately kept. Equinox ◑ 11:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete One can have other word classes called countable, eg, pronouns, determiners. DCDuring TALK 16:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete per Wikitiki.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Putting these terms together doesn’t create a unique sense. --Æ&Œ (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep. It is "free variable" again; see also Talk:free variable and Talk:countable noun. The analogy to "green tree" made above disregards the fact that "green" is applied to a much broader class of things than trees. By contrast, the sense of "countable" used in "countable noun" is specific to "countable noun". Think also "prime number". Regarding the recently repeatedly made assertion that Wiktionary is not about concepts: wrong. DCDuring's claim that we have "countable pronouns" seems implausible given google:"countable pronouns" and google books:"countable pronouns". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

In addition to attestable instances of pronoun(s) and determiner(s), there are such instances of nominal(s), quantifier(s), verb(s), adjective(s), word(s), phrase(s), etc. DCDuring TALK 14:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Cool, I didn't know we had kept any like that, although apparently it was only for lack of consensus. I have no problem with countable noun when the applicable definition of countable is "of a noun". Likewise oblique leaf, active volcano, antique car, etc. But our current policy is to delete these. DAVilla 03:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Ƿidsiþ 08:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep like all other grammar words. It is a word like a common noun or proper noun, even if it has spaces. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 07:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't think the discussion is over. Only twothree people voted against but I don't think that was a consensus. This is a grammar term and should be kept. The term is defined in major English language (Oxford, Cambridge), let alone bilingual dictionaries. Restored. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

CodeCat, WikiTiki, Mg, Eq, DCD, myself, Æ&Œ, and Widsith said to delete it. I'm not sure which five of those eight you're not counting, but I think the restoration was in error, and if no one else speaks up here to agree with you soon I'm redeleting it.​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I can see that people for keeping the term were outnumbered this time. So, a simple majority can now delete entries? Will the RFD process start after a short break after a successful pass? I haven't noticed this practice, even if it was in place. And deleting grammar terms, perfect dictionary entries is an outrage! Inclusion in old English dictionaries like Oxford, Cambridge, etc. and heaps of bilingual dictionaries doesn't count any more? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Since when is a two-to-one margin a "simple majority"? I also doubt that "kept for no consensus" is really "a successful pass". More like a non-decision. If it were kept by consensus, that would be different. You may not like the result, but- even assuming for the sake of argument that you're right- giving people the right to choose also means giving them the right to make bad choices, if they want- otherwise you're not really giving them a choice. Just to put another nail in the coffin, I'll go with Ungoliant and add my vote: delete. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I bite the bullet and shut up when entries I spent my time on and I consider important are deleted but I really think we are doing the wrong thing here. We have so many grammar terms, which are not solid words, many have passed RFD but many will be in danger. Will passive voice or comparative degree be the next candidates? "Countable noun" is defined as "count noun" in Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries. Do you think their CFI is worse than ours? Why? Why do you think Wiktionary gets better if these important words are deleted. @Mglovesfun (your comment in parallel topic) It's not translations only I worry about I'm worried about the English language part of Wictionary as well. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Here’s another vote to make the consensus even clearer: delete. If it’s so important, create an appendix page on countability and redirect countable noun and [[uncountable noun]] there. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 07:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete since sense 4 of countable covers it. —Angr 15:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. - -sche (discuss) 18:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210℠ (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)