# food - countable or uncountable?



## ediskvaka

Hi.
Is *food *countable or uncountable in the phrases
_I do not eat much/many food?_
_Is there any food?_
Thanks.


----------



## wolfbm1

ediskvaka said:


> Hi.
> Is *food *countable or uncountable in the phrases
> _I do not eat much/many food?_
> _Is there any food?_
> Thanks.



Hello Ediskvaka and Privet.

Well, as far as I am concerned I don't eat much either. There are a lot of different kinds of food out there. I like fresh food. Sometimes I buy frozen foods. They are convenient to prepare. I avoid rich foods like pastries.
Is there any particular type of food that I like most? I think it is fish, especially trout. I also eat a lot of vegetables. 

It depends on how you look at *"food"* - in general or in particular.

Please tell us what kind of food you like most and what kind of food you usually buy. This will give us a better picture of how you understand the uncountable and countable use of the word *food*.


----------



## Matching Mole

Food is uncountable in general use, as it is in your examples.

Like most non-count nouns it can be countable when considering _types_ of food. In this case it takes the plural _foods_, and may take the indefinite article_, a_.
_Which foods should I avoid during pregnancy?_ (which kinds of food?)
_Cotton, and its seed, is  __not a food_. (not a kind of food)


_I do not eat much/many food?_
It is "much food" (food in general), but "many foods" (many kinds of food).

_Is there any food?_
_Food_ takes singular concord with verbs (_"_food _is_", not "food _are_"), so if it were countable here it would say "Are there any food" (which isn't correct).


----------



## sound shift

The test here is "Can we say 'two food, three food, four food'?" The answer is "No, we cannot." "Food" is therefore uncountable. We cannot say *"I do not eat many food."

"Foods" is a different matter.


----------



## wolfbm1

sound shift said:


> The test here is "Can we say 'two food, three food, four food'?" The answer is "No, we cannot." "Food" is therefore uncountable. We cannot say *"I do not eat many food."
> 
> "Foods" is a different matter.



That is a good test as far as the word *"food"* is concerned (in its countable meaning). Because it has a plural form - "food*s"*.

But there are words that do not take 's' in their plural form, e.g. _trout_.  But that is a different matter as well.


----------



## timpeac

wolfbm1 said:


> That is a good test as far as the word *"food"* is concerned (in its countable meaning). Because it has a plural form - "food*s"*.
> 
> But there are words that do not take 's' in their plural form, e.g. _trout_.  But that is a different matter as well.


"Foods" isn't a common word (not sure I've ever heard it). Where did you come across it? Normally I think the plural would be "foodstuffs" (which itself isn't particularly common).


----------



## wolfbm1

timpea[I said:
			
		

> *c;*[/I]10232772]"Foods" isn't a common word (not sure I've ever heard it). Where did you come across it? Normally I think the plural would be "foodstuffs" (which itself isn't particularly common).



What I have really wanted to say is: That is a good test as far as the word "food" is concerned (in its *uncountable* meaning). And in its countable meaning it takes "s". But then it is the particular food. I wanted to agree with Sound Shift. (I made a boo-boo when I wrote: "(in its countable meaning)". I'm sorry.)

I also wanted to point out that there are other words (food words) that do not take _*"s"*_. 

I agree that the word *foods *is not used very often in colloquial speech. But sometimes it can be used. I found these examples in the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, New 8th Edition:
_"Campaigners are challenging the safety of genetically-modified foods."_
_"Does the food taste good?"_


----------



## suzi br

timpeac said:


> "Foods" isn't a common word (not sure I've ever heard it). Where did you come across it? Normally I think the plural would be "foodstuffs" (which itself isn't particularly common).


 

Foods is common enough if you read diet plans where you can choose two or three foods from a range of food groups, for instance.


----------



## suzi br

Matching mole alrady gave examples but here's another couple:

Some foods are better than others at building your immunity.

Certain foods are proven to stimulate faster cancer growth. 

These are not rare uses.


----------



## timpeac

suzi br said:


> Matching mole alrady gave examples but here's another couple:
> 
> Some foods are better than others at building your immunity.
> 
> Certain foods are proven to stimulate faster cancer growth.
> 
> These are not rare uses.


Well, I think colloquially you can take pretty much any uncountable noun and pluralise it to mean "types of..." To my mind that doesn't mean that "food" has a plural form "foods". You can't say, even colloquially, "there were three foods on the table". You can say, albeit only formally, "there were three foodstuffs on the table".


----------



## sdgraham

Interesting discussion since "foods" is quite common here in certain contexts.

For example, we have some local firms (rather large, actually)

Reser's Fine Foods (specialty items)
Kettle Foods, Inc. (chips BE: crisps, etc.)
Oregon Fine Foods Inc. (catering)
Juanita's Fine Foods Inc. (tortillas, taco shells, etc)
Winco Foods Inc (supermarket)


----------



## chrumcia1987z

Very interesting discussion! 

I have a question in a way related to the topic.

Is a sentence: "My favourite food are pancakes" completely unacceptable? 

Because the verb should match the subject, and not the object, right? But at the same time we might reverse the order and say "Pancakes are my favourite food" and everything is fine. And the fact that the order can be thus reversed makes me wonder whether "My favourite food are pancakes" is completely wrong (prescriptively speaking, at least).


----------



## Fabulist

timpeac said:


> Well, I think colloquially you can take pretty much any uncountable noun and pluralise it to mean "types of..." To my mind that doesn't mean that "food" has a plural form "foods". You can't say, even colloquially, "there were three foods on the table". You can say, albeit only formally, "there were three foodstuffs on the table".


 
There was also an earlier suggestion of "foodstuff" as an equivalent of "food" as a _type of food._  I wonder if this isn't a British usage.  While the term "foodstuff" is familiar to me as an American, I would expect to see it only in the formal technical discussions of economists and agricultural experts.  Perhaps they use it more broadly, but I associate it with the _material _from which food is made; e.g., wheat is a _foodstuff,_ bread is a _food. _ I would certainly not expect to hear it at the dining table.


----------



## Andygc

timpeac said:


> Well, I think colloquially you can take pretty much any uncountable noun and pluralise it to mean "types of..." To my mind that doesn't mean that "food" has a plural form "foods". You can't say, even colloquially, "there were three foods on the table". You can say, albeit only formally, "there were three foodstuffs on the table".


There are 2085 example of "foods" in the British National Corpus. Naturally, a proportion (a small proportion) are the names of food-producing businesses.

"Like so many peasant *foods*, the essence of pasta is its simplicity"
"The passion for ‘health’ *foods* and mineral water, and exercises such as ‘jogging’ and aerobics, were largely middle-class enthusiasms."
"The Lappish diet is restricted to these basic *foods* and the result has been both anger and concern."
"Alternatively, you could fill the basket with his favourite *foods* or toiletries."
"... *foods* rich in fat or refined sugar might seem very attractive ..."

The use of "foods" is far too common in written work to be dismissed as colloquial pluralisation by adding 's'.


----------



## panjandrum

Indeed, far from colloquial "foods" is used routinely by the most up-market purveyors of fine foods.
Fortnum & Mason,


----------



## wolfbm1

chrumcia1987z said:


> Very interesting discussion!
> 
> I have a question in a way related to the topic.
> 
> Is a sentence: "My favourite food are pancakes" completely unacceptable?
> 
> Because the verb should match the subject, and not the object, right? But at the same time we might reverse the order and say "Pancakes are my favourite food" and everything is fine. And the fact that the order can be thus reversed makes me wonder whether "My favourite food are pancakes" is completely wrong (prescriptively speaking, at least).



What is interesting some people say:
_"... pancakes are one of my favourite *foods* ... " _(http://viciousange.blogspot.com/2010/03/if-you-have-too-many-grapes.html)
_"Pancakes are one of my favourite *foods*!! I love them with sugar and milk! Yum Yum"_ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/leeds/features/get_together/pancake_day/pancake.shtml)
I have even seen "foods" used in a question: _What are your favourite foods beginning with each letter from your first name_?

As regards me nectarine crepes are my favourite type of food. Here is how they look: http://www.joyfulabode.com/2007/09/25/how-to-keep-your-man-happy-or-delicious-nectarine-crepes/. 

This dish is looks good too: Citrus Creme' Crepe with Nectarine Sauce (http://www.chaserivers.com/chase-rivers-flair/2010/04/citrus-creme-crepe-with-nectarine-sauce.html


----------



## timpeac

Andygc said:


> There are 2085 example of "foods" in the British National Corpus. Naturally, a proportion (a small proportion) are the names of food-producing businesses.
> 
> "Like so many peasant *foods*, the essence of pasta is its simplicity"
> "The passion for ‘health’ *foods* and mineral water, and exercises such as ‘jogging’ and aerobics, were largely middle-class enthusiasms."
> "The Lappish diet is restricted to these basic *foods* and the result has been both anger and concern."
> "Alternatively, you could fill the basket with his favourite *foods* or toiletries."
> "... *foods* rich in fat or refined sugar might seem very attractive ..."
> 
> The use of "foods" is far too common in written work to be dismissed as colloquial pluralisation by adding 's'.


I stand by what I say. To use another example "water" doesn't have a plural (referring to the stuff you drink, not the more poetic meaning for rivers or seas) yet you can say "like many French mineral waters, Evian is mostly exported..." As long as you can't say "how many foods do you want for dinner?" I'm not going to be convinced that "foods" is anything other than a plural of an uncountable noun indicating "kinds of", just as you can do with any uncountable noun.


----------



## timpeac

Fabulist said:


> There was also an earlier suggestion of "foodstuff" as an equivalent of "food" as a _type of food._  I wonder if this isn't a British usage.  While the term "foodstuff" is familiar to me as an American, I would expect to see it only in the formal technical discussions of economists and agricultural experts.  Perhaps they use it more broadly, but I associate it with the _material _from which food is made; e.g., wheat is a _foodstuff,_ bread is a _food. _ I would certainly not expect to hear it at the dining table.


Could be, the Oxford English Dictionary gives the definition familiar to me - _a substance suitable for consumption as food _- whereas the first definition in Meriam Webster (AE dictionary) is _a substance with food value; specifically *:*_ the raw material of food before or after processing


----------



## Andygc

timpeac said:


> I stand by what I say.
> ...snip...
> I'm not going to be convinced that "foods" is anything other than a plural of an uncountable noun indicating "kinds of", just as you can do with any uncountable noun.


Ahh, we were slightly at cross-purposes. I was objecting to your describing it as a colloquialism. I regard it as a normal  part of standard English.

In our inimitable forum style, we have wandered away from the original question (helped on the way by some of the mods ).


> Is *food *countable or uncountable in the phrases
> _I do not eat much/many food?_
> _Is there any food?_


Do we agree that in the examples it is uncountable, but in a different context it becomes countable?


----------



## wolfbm1

ediskvaka said:


> Hi.
> Is *food *countable or uncountable in the phrases
> _I do not eat much/many food?_
> _Is there any food?_
> Thanks.



If we remove the word *many* from the examples above  then they will look like this:
_I do not eat much food?
Is there any food?_

Now the word *food* can be substituted by pasta or any other food (or foodstuff <e.g. spaghetti, parboiled rice> or even chow <from Chinese pidgin English>) related item. Thus we get this:

_I do not eat much pasta. _ 
_Is there any pasta?_  (= e.g. _Is there any pasta in the bowl?_)

In the above sentences _pasta_ is definitely uncountable. It is a mass.

The trouble is that Ediskvaka's examples contain the word *many*. Now we have to take it into consideration. And, of course, *many* goes together with countable nouns.

If we keep the word *many* then we can create these sentences:

_I do not eat many pastas._   = _I do not eat many pasta dishes._ _But I really like "Cincinnati Chili" _(http://whatscookingamerica.net/Beef/CincinnatiChili.htm)
_Is there any pasta?_  =_ Is there any pasta dish on the menu?_

Could we say: _I do not eat many foods._? It looks that we cannot, doesn't it?


----------



## timpeac

Andygc said:


> Ahh, we were slightly at cross-purposes. I was objecting to your describing it as a colloquialism. I regard it as a normal  part of standard English.
> 
> In our inimitable forum style, we have wandered away from the original question (helped on the way by some of the mods ).
> Do we agree that in the examples it is uncountable, but in a different context it becomes countable?


Answering the second part first - I'd like to say yes as we're basically on the same page, I think - but in my opinion, no.

My point is that you can take pretty much any uncountable noun and add -s to mean "types of" (or in terms of coffee, for example, "cups of" etc) just as long as the uncountable noun is something that can come in different types. As such if you say "food" is sometimes uncountable and sometimes countable then you are effectively doing away with the whole of the category of uncountable nouns because you can say the same about any of them.

What I mean is that "types of xxx" is not really a plural of "xxx". To give an example, "coffee" is uncountable yet I can say "some coffees contain more cafeine than others" and "I like two coffees before breakfast". Does that make "coffee" countable? I'd argue not. Another example - "I've drunk all of the wines in the pub" means you sampled all the (types of) wine on offer. It's very different from "I've drunk all the wine in the pub" or "I've drunk all of all of the (types of) wine in the pub".

Back to the first part - the colloquial question - as I say I think you can take any uncountable noun and pluralise it to give a different nuance of meaning as long as it's possible to conceive there are different types of the item in question. I think that the ease with which this is done varies depending on how commonly it occurs. For example, a common occurrence is if someone says "I'll have a tea, please" (instead of "some tea"). Being a bit of a pedant that always grates on my ear when I hear it (not that I'd say anything), it sounds colloquial to me. It hasn't yet for me reached the status of being standard. "The petrols sold at this station are all terrible" sounds even worse to me. "I like a tall cool beer", however, sounds fine. "The punishments used at this institution are terrible" also sounds fine.

So it seems to me that this countable use of an uncountable noun has to earn its spurs before it can be considered standard - and most aren't. With "foods" I agree that it is not colloquial in the phrase "fine foods" and in the shop context. In other contexts, yes you're probably right "colloquial" is a bit too harsh. Nonetheless something like "certain foods are proven to stimulate faster cancer growth" still niggles a little at my ear - at the very least it sounds like business speak.

Bringing it right back to the original question I'd say that "food" is uncountable, although the plural-looking form can be found in some fairly specialised contexts where it no longer means "food as in human fuel" but specifically "types of food".


----------



## suzi br

timpeac said:


> Well, I think colloquially you can take pretty much any uncountable noun and pluralise it to mean "types of..." To my mind that doesn't mean that "food" has a plural form "foods". You can't say, even colloquially, "there were three foods on the table". You can say, albeit only formally, "there were three foodstuffs on the table".


 
Your persistence in denying some very ordinary uses of the word FOODS is puzzling. 

Saying what cannot be said is not nearly so interesting as accpeting that FOODS is current in many contexts and not really specialised ones, diet planning and food retail are pretty mainstream contexts for foods of all sorts.


----------



## Andygc

timpeac said:


> To give an example, "coffee" is uncountable yet I can say "some coffees contain more cafeine than others" and "I like two coffees before breakfast". Does that make "coffee" countable? I'd argue not.


Keep digging 

One meaning of _coffee _from the COED is "a hot drink made from the roasted and ground bean-like seeds of a tropical shrub."

"I'll have a hot drink made from ... etc"
"And I'll have a hot drink made from ... etc"
"Waiter, that makes two hot drinks made from ... etc"

Seems to me that coffee, when it means "a hot drink made from ... etc" fits pretty well to the concept of a countable noun.

"I'll have two coffees please"

I think you'll find a meaning of _tea _that is very similar. 

I would, however, agree that "food" is only pluralised when used to mean "type of food", but to my mind it then becomes countable


----------



## timpeac

suzi br said:


> Your persistence in denying some very ordinary uses of the word FOODS is puzzling.
> 
> Saying what cannot be said is not nearly so interesting as accpeting that FOODS is current in many contexts and not really specialised ones, diet planning and food retail are pretty mainstream contexts for foods of all sorts.



Which common usage of the word FOODS have I denied? Despite your use of the word persistence, I see you quote one of my first posts in the thread. Did you read the later ones?


----------



## timpeac

Andygc said:


> Keep digging
> 
> One meaning of _coffee _from the COED is "a hot drink made from the roasted and ground bean-like seeds of a tropical shrub."
> 
> "I'll have a hot drink made from ... etc"
> "And I'll have a hot drink made from ... etc"
> "Waiter, that makes two hot drinks made from ... etc"
> 
> Seems to me that coffee, when it means "a hot drink made from ... etc" fits pretty well to the concept of a countable noun.


 Then we really do disagree. Yes "a hot drink made etc" is countable, but only if you have several types, otherwise it's uncountable. You (as in one) like coffee, you like a lot of coffee, and there's certainly nothing stopping you liking several coffees but if you do you either like several different brands of coffee or you like several cups. It's a classic use of pluralising an uncountable noun just as you can any uncountable noun to mean "types of" or in this case "cups of".


----------



## wolfbm1

Andygc said:


> Keep digging
> 
> One meaning of _coffee _from the COED is "a hot drink made from the roasted and ground bean-like seeds of a tropical shrub."
> 
> "I'll have a hot drink made from ... etc"
> "And I'll have a hot drink made from ... etc"
> "Waiter, that makes two hot drinks made from ... etc"
> 
> Seems to me that coffee, when it means "a hot drink made from ... etc" fits pretty well to the concept of a countable noun.
> 
> "I'll have two coffees please"
> 
> I think you'll find a meaning of _tea _that is very similar.
> 
> I would, however, agree that "food" is only pluralised when used to mean "type of food", but to my mind it then becomes countable



What is interesting I have just come across an interesting article ""THE QUEEN TEA; Royal drops in for a cuppa with Susan." (http://www.google.pl/search?hl=pl&rlz=1C1GPCK_enPL398PL398&q=%22THE+QUEEN+TEA;+Royal+drops+in+for+a+cuppa+with+Susan.%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=) where the word *"cuppa"* is mentioned. *Cuppa* means a cup of tea. A cuppa is definitely a countable noun.


----------



## wolfbm1

suzi br said:


> Your persistence in denying some very ordinary uses of the word FOODS is puzzling.
> 
> Saying what cannot be said is not nearly so interesting as accpeting that FOODS is current in many contexts and not really specialised ones, diet planning and food retail are pretty mainstream contexts for foods of all sorts.



The word *foods* was used by Louis Alexander - A revolutionary teacher of English to the world (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2002/jul/09/guardianobituaries.obituaries) In his famous book *Practice and Progress* (New Concept English) by Louis George Alexander, Longman, page 131, chapter 51: Reward for Virtue  - Why did Herbert's diet not work?, we read: 

“My friend, Herbert, has always been fat, but things got so bad recently that he decided to go on a diet. He began his diet a week ago. First of all, he wrote out a long list of all the *foods* which were forbidden. The list included most of the things Herbert  loves: butter, potatoes, rice, beer, milk, chocolate, and sweets.”

Below the story about Herbert and his diet there is a list of questions. Among them there is this one:
"Has he forbidden himself all the *foods* he likes, or has he forbidden himself all the *foods* he does not like?"

The word *foods* occurrs in the context of things that we eat every day, like butter, potatoes, milk and sweets.

I wonder if foods is interchangeable with foodstuffs in British English. Maybe the word foodstuffs is used more often by the Americans.


----------



## danialencar

I really like the discussion and I believe I learned a lot from it... however I have a very simple and maybe stupid question:

Junk Food would be countable or uncountable when I'm using *less* and *fewer*. I was thinking of using it as an example in class then I start wondering... I would say less junk food, but now I'm not completely sure about it.


----------



## Cagey

Hello danialencar.  

Welcome to the forum.   

I think that 'less' is usually right.  I would say, for instance, "_Eat less junk food._"  

If we are thinking of specific examples of junk food, we might use the countable version, but I think this is less likely.  Here is one example I thought of: _Today he likes fewer junk foods than than he did when he was a child. _
(It's not a _good _example.  It's just the best I could to right now. )


----------



## danialencar

Thanks for the welcome. I've never tried one of these forums before and I really like the idea of sharing and learning.

Well, I can totally see the difference when using fewer and less in this case... thanks.


----------



## EdisonBhola

I read through the whole thread but still don't understand the difference. 

When you purchase any frozen or chilled food/foods, you can get a free bottle of oil.

Would you use "food" or "foods", and why?


----------



## velisarius

I'm assuming this means any one item, so for me it would be "When you purchase any item of frozen or chilled food..." I would happily omit "item", making it "any frozen or chilled food..."


----------



## EdisonBhola

Does "any frozen or chilled foods" (with an s) mean "any kinds of frozen or chilled food" (without an s)?


----------



## Myridon

It would mean more than one kind of food.  "Foods" is not commonly used in everyday speech.  We more often say different kinds of food, than different foods.  Using "foods" also makes it unclear whether you have to buy more than one frozen item and whether the items have to be different kinds of items to get the oil.


----------



## EdisonBhola

How about this (treating food as countable and adding "a"):

When you buy a frozen or chilled food, you can get a free bottle of oil.


----------



## Andygc

EdisonBhola said:


> How about this (treating food as countable and adding "a"):
> 
> When you buy a frozen or chilled food, you can get a free bottle of oil.


No. To paraphrase Myridon, countable "food" is not commonly used in everyday speech. There has to be a particular reason to use the countable form: for example "which foods contain vitamin C?" "Fruit and vegetables". Here "foods" is used to mean "types of food". "Dark chocolate is a food from Heaven": here the countable form identifies dark chocolate as a particular and special type of food, but allows for the possibility that there is another food from Heaven, perhaps manna. I thought this had been explained previously.


----------



## Lecword

Hi all,

I've been reading this thread and I was wondering if you could help me. 
Should I say "_wide rage of food_" or _"a wide range of food*s*_"?
_"A great variety of food"_ or _"a great variety of food*s*_"?

Many thanks


----------



## Cagey

Lecword said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I've been reading this thread and I was wondering if you could help me.
> Should I say "_wide rage of food_" or _"a wide range of food*s*_"?
> _"A great variety of food"_ or _"a great variety of food*s*_"?
> 
> Many thanks


Hello, Lecword.   

I would say _a wide range of foods_.  The point of having a wide range is that you have a lot of different kinds of food, which is when we use the countable form. 

I would say _"a great variety of food*s*_" for the same reason.


----------



## felipenor

Andygc said:


> Keep digging
> 
> One meaning of _coffee _from the COED is "a hot drink made from the roasted and ground bean-like seeds of a tropical shrub."
> 
> "I'll have a hot drink made from ... etc"
> "And I'll have a hot drink made from ... etc"
> "Waiter, that makes two hot drinks made from ... etc"
> 
> Seems to me that coffee, when it means "a hot drink made from ... etc" fits pretty well to the concept of a countable noun.


But those examples strike me as exclusively related to ordering/buying. On the other hand though, if you were offering it to a friend at your place, you'd probably say "Do you want some coffee?" or "Would you like a cup of coffee?", but not "Would you like a coffee?", right?


----------



## Andygc

I could say any of those in that situation.


----------



## felipenor

Andygc said:


> I could say any of those in that situation.


Really? I always assumed there was some difference, but then again I'm not a native speaker. I thought it sounded fine to ask a "friend" "Do you have some coffee?", but weird to ask "Do you have a coffee?" or "Do you have an orange juice?"


----------



## terence77

Food is uncountable in general except a few case where name of the food item is specified exactly as mango, pizza etc. In other cases food has the similar usage as water. I do not eat much food would be the correct usage according to me.


----------



## Andygc

felipenor said:


> Really? I always assumed there was some difference, but then again I'm not a native speaker. I thought it sounded fine to ask a "friend" "Do you have some coffee?", but weird to ask "Do you have a coffee?" or "Do you have an orange juice?"


Yes, really, why do you think I wrote it? But I wouldn't say "Do you have ..." as a way of offering somebody a drink, because that's not English. I certainly say  "Would you like a coffee?", often.

Don't confuse that with:
Me "Would you like a drink?"
Friend "Do you have coffee?" not "... a coffee?" 
but this is normal:
Friend "Could I have a coffee?"

But this is wandering from the thread topic, which is "food".


----------



## felipenor

Andygc said:


> Yes, really, why do you think I wrote it? But I wouldn't say "Do you have ..." as a way of offering somebody a drink, because that's not English. I certainly say  "Would you like a coffee?", often.


I didn't mean "Do you have a coffee?" an a way of offering, but rather as a way of requesting (sorry if I wasn't clear). If it's ok to offer saying "Would you like a coffee?", why isn't it ok to request saying "Do you have a coffee?"


----------



## baab

1. All of *the food* *was *prepared by seven.
2. All of *the foods* *were *prepared by seven.

Are both sentences OK? Do you see any difference in meaning between them? Thanks!


----------



## JustKate

Baab, I've moved your question to one of the many other threads we have on this topic. If your questions aren't answered already, you're welcome to add them to this thread. 

JustKate
English Only moderator


----------



## PaulQ

1. All of *the food* *was *prepared by seven.  -> the food = the things that were edible -> *food *is a mass noun (uncountable)
2. All of *the foods* *were *prepared by seven.  -> foods = different types of *food*. (countable)


----------



## baab

Thank you, JustKate and PaulQ.


----------



## velisarius

I would urge baab to add "o'clock" to the sentence. I was wondering for a minute or so why it took seven people to prepare the food, and who they were.


----------



## PaulQ

...and it is worthwhile mentioning that the use of "*foods*" is rare.


----------



## G.Determinism

Hi there

The first example is derived from the Cambridge Dictionary. Irrespective of whether we see each of "food and drink" here as an uncountable noun, shouldn't the verb be in accord with them, i.e example #2? (food and drink are two things and therefore the verb must be "were").
As to #3, it was said in this topic that foods means "types of food", in parties we normally have different types of food, so based on this reasoning, why not #3?

1. There was lots of food and drink at the party.
2. There were lots of food and drink at the party.
3. There were lots of foods and drinks at the party.


----------



## Loob

Re post 51

I would treat "food and drink" as a single item, G.Determinism:
_1. There was lots of food and drink at the party.
2. There were lots of food and drink at the party._

The third sentence would work for me with the addition of "different", so it was clear you were talking about different types of food and drink:
_3a. There were lots of different foods and drinks at the party._
Even then, though, I'd be much more likely to use the singular:
_3b. There was lots of different food and drink at the party._


----------



## PaulQ

Nouns are not simply divided into the countable and uncountable, in default terms, they can be strongly or weakly uncountable or countable. The use is determined by the context.

Advice is strongly uncountable - it is not currently used countably
Knife is strongly countable - it is not found as an uncountable noun.
Vibration is weakly countable it is usually countable but can be uncountable
Food is weakly uncountable: it is usually uncountable but can be countable.

An uncountable noun describes a set of homogeneous items. All food can be eaten, therefore we say "There was lots of food and drink at the party." in which both food and drink are uncountable.

The use of *foods *is rare: it usually refers to the composition and origins of an amount of edible items of the same or similar type, "Foods (any items that are edible) with a high carbohydrate content should be avoided." This use is usually formal. Informally, we would usually say "foodstuffs."


----------



## G.Determinism

Thanks a lot, Loob and Paul.
So I think It would be better for a non-native speaker like me to stick to the uncountable form to stay on the safe side.

Thanks.


----------

