Talk:silage

The etymology seems to be wrong: this would be the origin of "ensile", the verb. dictionary.com suggests that it just short for "ensilage".

Surely this is uncountable too? There should not be a plural in that case. — Paul G 16:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well, very many years ago I worked in the laboratory of an animal food company, and analyzed the stuff. I have been know to say things like "I've done thirty silages this morning and have got another forty to do this afternoon." SemperBlotto 16:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's surely uncountable, except when talking of different examples. This is how all uncountable nouns work – for example milk, wine, sand or flour. In each case the noun is used uncountably, unless we are saying, for example "the shop sells many different wines" (the equivalent of SemperBlotto's example above). If we want to talk about the countable usage I think we need a separate item, as is done for example in Wine. For the moment I have changed it to uncountable, which is how it is used nearly all the time. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• • We include plurals even if they are rare, since they are still legitimate words. Look at how I've improved it with "usually uncountable." Please don't remove legitimate plurals. Equinox ◑ 14:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

    The example of SemperBlotto is an example not of the plural of "silage", but of the plural of short form of a legitimately countable term: "silage sample" in this case. So yes, silage remains uncountable, always. But I'm just throwing this in here, neither being a linguist nor interested in Wiki* squabbles… Jae (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

You are wrong. It is the plural of "silage". The plural of "silage sample" is "silage samples". Equinox ◑ 12:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)