Words that are countable in Chinese but not English?

[tooironic]

The two most obvious words I can think of that are countable in Chinese but not English are "news" and "information". For example, in Chinese it is acceptable to say:

我看了一个新闻。

Literally: I read a news.

Better translation: I read a news story.

我有个好消息要告诉你。

Literally: I have a good news to tell you.

Better translation: I have some good news to tell you.

这些信息是不对的。

Literally: These information are incorrect.

Better translation: This information is incorrect.

So, have you noticed any other words that are countable in Chinese but not English? I'm curious to know.

[fanglu]

Both are countable in English (but need a 'measure word'). Two pieces of news. A titbit of information (or two bits of information). Granted, both my usages are pretty informal, but still countable.

[tooironic]

A classifier does not make a noun countable. If that were the case, almost any noun would be countable (a piece of furniture, a kind of knowledge, a bucket of mud, etc.). In the examples you gave, piece and tidbit are countable nouns, not news and information.

[fanglu]

I guess you're right. But all Chinese nouns need classifiers too. What would be a countable versus an uncountable noun in Chinese?

[Michaelyus]

The usual way of distinguishing this in current Chinese (and other classifier-enforcing languages) is: Count(-noun) classifier vs Mass(-noun) classifier.

 

There's a couple of tests to distinguish them (according to this paper from 1998):

 

1) Inserting 的: 两箱的书 vs *两头的牛

2) Inserting certain adjectives, e.g. 大: 那一小箱书 vs *一大头牛

[realmayo]

Interesting topic. 

 

 Count(-noun) classifier vs Mass(-noun) classifier.

 

Please explain!

[Shelley]

Your example 我看了一个新闻。 Literally means  I look (ed) one (classifier) news.

 

ge 个is a classifier, a general purpose one but never the less a classifier.

 

So if I understand you, it makes it countable if it doesn't use a classifier so this in my opinion makes " 一个新闻 " mean "one (insert classifier of your choice) news" not countable.

 

Do correct me if I am wrong it may be that I have just misunderstood this whole thing.

[Michaelyus]

I hope we're all clear on what "countable" means. The formal definition I've found most helpful is (after Allan 1980):

 

 

If the head constituent of an NP falls within the scope of a denumerator, it is countable.

 

 

In English, which obligatorily marks for plural number, if something is countable, then it will have a plural. Whether the plural is evident or not is another question (cf. sheep and scissors, and then you have collective nouns etc.).

 

This modification of the general definition does not hold true cross-linguistically; the paper I linked to above gives Swahili and Sinhala as languages where uncountable nouns "look" plural. Hence, different languages will often have different markers / tests for countability.

 

 

 

it makes it countable if it doesn't use a classifier

 

 

This is the crux of the matter. In general Chinese nouns must use a classifier (except for fossilised expressions); nouns do not pair with denumerators in Chinese. Yet, it is certainly true that some nouns are classified into discrete objects that are counted directly, while others are treated as masses that are given set measures by which they are counted. Others appear not to take numerals at all. These are treated as "count nouns" and "mass nouns".

 

But it is in the classifiers that the grammatical distinction is made. A count classifier (also called a "sortal classifier", and sometimes considered "classifiers" proper) cannot be used with a mass noun, whereas mass classifiers (also called "measure words", "mensural classifier" and even "massifier") do get used with count nouns:

 

 

一盒灯泡

一盒茶 

 

一个灯泡

*一个茶

 

... with 盒 being a measure word while 个 is a true count classifier.

 

A 2010 paper further refines the markers for measure word vs count classifier from the research linked to above in #5.

 

 

Measure words / mass classifiers are found in all natural languages; count classifiers are not. But what counts as countable is not the same across languages, and often even within the same language different ways of expressing the same reality can be found (cf. English cow and cattle). Cross-lingustically, English fruit can be uncountable yet vegetable generally must be countable, whilst in German Frucht and Gemüse have both statuses.

 

Hence, as #1 states, 新闻 and 消息 can be both countable, while news cannot be.

[Shelley]

Well thank you for that explanation, I think I understand.

 

I will think it over and see if it makes more sense, meanwhile I will just go hide in the corner with the dunce cap.

[Pedroski]

Countables without 量词 might be:

 

三天，二小时， 一点，一人去南京

[MPhillips]

I believe 忠告 (advice)，设备(equipment)，证据(evidence)，垃圾(garbage)，作业(homework)，进步(progress) & 软件(software) can all take the count classifier 个 . The English counterparts I gave require the use of measure words in order for them to be quantified. I knew the count noun/mass noun distinction from my study of European languages, but I didn't have a clear understanding in the case of Chinese--so thanks to Michaelyus for a neat explanation. By the way, since I'm looking to acquire one, which is the best English language work on Chinese grammar that you know of?

[Demonic_Duck]

Well thank you for that explanation, I think I understand.

 

I will think it over and see if it makes more sense, meanwhile I will just go hide in the corner with the dunce cap.

Not sure if this explanation helps clarify further or not...

 

In English, uncountable nouns are those that need to take a measure word if you want to measure them. For example:

 

You can't say "one water", but you can say "one glass of water" (outside of an informal context where you might ask "can I get a water?" in a restaurant).

You can't say "five papers", but you can say "five sheets of paper" (unless, of course, you're talking about academic papers, or using "papers" as shorthand for "newspapers").

 

In contrast, countable nouns don't need a measure word to count.

 

You can say "three cows".

You can say "two buildings".

 

In Chinese, you don't just have measure words in the strict sense, you also have other types of classifiers (which, confusingly, are often mislabeled "measure words"). For contrast:

 

Measure words: 盒、瓶、箱、杯、堆 etc.

Other classifiers: 个、头、本、根、只、支、条、匹 etc.

 

When you use uncountable nouns with adjectives, the adjective goes before the measure word:

一大瓶水 (a big bottle of water).

When you use countable nouns with adjectives, the adjective goes after the classifier:

一匹大马 (a big horse).

 

 

 

Countables without 量词 might be:

 

三天，二小时， 一点，一人去南京

I think in the first three cases what you're thinking of as the "noun" is in fact the classifier, and the noun is omitted:

三天（时间）

两小时（时间）

一点（钟）

 

In the last case, the classifier is omitted, which is done in newspaper headlines, Classical Chinese and sometimes in informal usage:

一（个）人去南京

[Pedroski]

I would be careful with such examples as 'a glass of water'. 'of water' is a descriptive phrase, here describing what you want in your glass. ‘glass' is not a descriptive phrase for 'of water', and I do not think you would care for '*a glass water'

 

H W Fowler: " 'of' shares with another word of the same length, 'as', the evil glory of being accessory to more crimes against grammar than any other."

[MPhillips]

@Pedroski How do you parse "a piece of fruit" or "three head of cattle"?

[MPhillips]

@Michaelyus As I mentioned before I learned a lot from your explanations, however in rereading post #5, it seems 牛, a count noun is being contrasted against 书 （therefore presumably a mass noun), but if 书 admits of the construction "一本大书" doesn't that place it in the same category as 牛？ Similarly 两本的书 is just as deserving of an asterisk as 两头的牛。

[Michaelyus]

however in rereading post #5, it seems 牛, a count noun is being contrasted against 书 （therefore presumably a mass noun), but if 书 admits of the construction "一本大书" doesn't that place it in the same category as 牛？ Similarly 两本的书 is just as deserving of an asterisk as 两头的牛。 

 

 

This is precisely the reason why countability in Chinese is generally considered to be encoded in the classifier/measure word. It is not 牛 vs 书; it's actually 箱 vs 头. I could have switched the nouns with other classifiers / measure words, and used 一群的牛 vs *一本的书.

 

Of course, that goes back to that knotty semantic question of "which noun with which classifier [and why?]". Someone has quoted Yip & Rimmington's grammar on StackExchange, which also deals in part with this question.

[tooironic]

Big thanks to MPhillips for actually answering the question I asked in the original post.

 

I will pass this on to my Chinese students who are learning English. I think it will come in handy for them.

[Shelley]

@MPhillips One grammar book that is quite popular and i use myself is Modern Mandarin Chinese Grammar (A Practical Guide) and there is a workbook.

 

In the topic I started about grammar terms many good books were suggested http://www.chinese-forums.com/index.php?/topic/45747-grammar-terminology/

[Michaelyus]

In the other direction:

 

English mind can be countable, while of the Chinese equivalents only 头脑 and 神经 are countable and then not in the same semantic contexts. 精神 certainly isn't countable and must take 种. The nearest comfortable equivalent to countable mind would be 想法 I'd think, where there is rapprochement with thought (which is also countable in English).

[Demonic_Duck]

I would be careful with such examples as 'a glass of water'. 'of water' is a descriptive phrase, here describing what you want in your glass. ‘glass' is not a descriptive phrase for 'of water', and I do not think you would care for '*a glass water'

1) How much water do you want?

I want two glasses of water, please.

 

2) What do you want in your glass?

I want water in my glass, please.

 

Note that the answer to 2) is not "I want a glass of water"... That would sound awkward. I think you're needlessly clouding things here... "glass", in this case, is a measure word for water, just as "杯" is a measure word for 水 in "我想喝一杯水".