# goods, cosmetics, valuables, belongings



## pchangb

How can I express large or small amount of "goods, cosmetics, valuables, belongings" ?

How can I count  "goods, cosmetics, valuables, belongings" ?
Ex) a peice of cake, two cups of tea.. in this way I can count 'cake', 'tea'.

Are they Plural / Singular ? Shoud I use 'is' or 'are' in a sentence ?


----------



## EStjarn

In the case of 'goods', it is recognized as a singular noun by some dictionaries. For example, from the Wiktionary entry: 





> *good *... 4. (countable, usually in plural) An item of merchandise.



When something is countable, you can express a large or a small quantity of it with a number: one good, five goods, 110 goods. For instance, a Google search for "five goods" renders 19,000 hits (all of which are not necessarily relevant), and among the first ten one finds as headlines: "What are the best five goods ladies acquire on the Web?" and "List five goods whose demand you believe should be perfectly elastic."

However, most dictionaries that I've checked, including AHD and Longman, seem to not acknowledge the singular form. So if we part from that view, I'd say: a piece of goods, five pieces of goods, 110 pieces of goods. A Google search for "five pieces of goods" renders 51 results. (I have a feeling this form is correct but out of date. I'd go for the countable version.)


----------



## suzi br

10 pieces of goods sounds totally unidtiomatic to me, I'm afraid.

To indicate a small number of cosmetics, belongings or valuables we'd say A* FEW .... 
*
If you have a large number we'd say *LOTS OF* cosmetics, belongings, valuables.


----------



## EStjarn

Here are two more counts of Google search results that might be of interest:

piece of goods 348,000
pieces of goods 250,000


----------



## suzi br

Those searches have not worked, EStjarn.


----------



## EStjarn

Thank you, suzi br. They should be working now.


----------



## pchangb

Thank you. 
But the conclusion is not clear and the discussion is not enough, I think.

1) So, you mean for words like 'goods, cosmetics, valuables, belongings', there is no widely accepted expression which counts (discrete) them ?
2) If I want to buy two items in a department store, and the items are cosmetics - How can I express this fact ?
 ex) I want to buy two tubes containg cosmetics - ??? Give me two containers containing cosmetics - ???


----------



## EStjarn

Hi pchangb,

Your examples aren't very convincing because cosmetics include:



> "...skin-care creams, lotions, powders, perfumes, lipsticks, fingernail and toe nail polish, eye and facial makeup, towelettes, permanent waves, colored contact lenses, hair colors, hair sprays and gels, deodorants, hand sanitizer, baby products, bath oils, bubble baths, bath salts, butters and many other types of products." (Wikipedia)



As you can understand, clients would not likely say they wanted two tubes of cosmetics or two containers of cosmetics in the situation described. Instead, they would express themselves more specifically: _I would like two tubes of Great Lash mascara, please. Two bottles of Wind Song cologne, please._

Answers are built on context. Of which you have provided very little. For example, why do you wonder particularly about goods, cosmetics, valuables and belongings? It sounds as though they're just unrelated examples of plural nouns. (That's why in post #2 I only addressed the first item on the list.)

Unfortunately it is often difficult to answer broad questions in a way that satisfies the enquirer. It is much easier to tackle a query when it focuses on a single feature of the language, and when context is provided in such an amount that members are allowed to get a good grasp of the situation at hand. Then, the chance of getting good replies multiplies.

Welcome to the forum!


----------



## suzi br

I've told you , we say a FEW or A LOT of LOTS of .. 

Otherwise, as my esteemed colleague has pointed out, your question is too generic, and no-one would buy cosmetics in that general way that you suggest.  Products have names and containters to match, a compact for podwer, a bottle of foundation, a tube of mascara a bottle of lotion a tub of cream etc etc ...


----------



## PaulQ

EStjarn said:


> Here are two more counts of Google search results that might be of interest:
> 
> piece of goods 348,000
> pieces of goods 250,000


Most of those fall into the categories of
Not by native speaker
Colloquial idiom or saying
Over 300 years old

*Some *goods, cosmetics, valuables, belongings.

Twenty *lots of goods*, cosmetics, valuables, belongings

Twenty *items in the* goods, cosmetics, valuables, belongings *category*

Twenty *bits and pieces, all* goods, cosmetics, valuables, belongings, *etc.*

Twenty* sorts/kinds/types* *of* goods, cosmetics, valuables, belongings,


----------



## EStjarn

PaulQ said:


> Most of those fall into the categories of
> Not by native speaker
> Colloquial idiom or saying
> Over 300 years old



I'm not sure how you found out that most of those webpages belong to the three categories you mention. Is that perhaps a speculation on your part? Even if it was not, it would still leave open the possibility that a sufficiently large number of the results are valid as support for that the phrases in question are, within the proper context, idiomatic: forty-nine percent of the results equals roughly 170,000 and 125,000, respectively.

I've checked the sources of the first twenty hits of a search on Google Web for "pieces of goods." To follow is the result. Bolded text represents either AmE or BrE sources (as far as I could tell). Among them appear a number of patent descriptions. Though it's possible that those descriptions have been written by non-native inventors, it seems equally likely that the descriptions have been at least edited by native staff since they appear on US and UN websites.

Finally, one should remember that speakers of non-native English often try to pattern their use of language on native English speakers'. This means that non-native English should not automatically be considered incorrect, only unreliable as a model for the proper use of English. It is also quite likely that non-native sources have consulted natives regarding the 'In English' section of their websites.

*1) Sarah Fielding, British author, 18th century
*2) BDZ (railway company, Bulgaria)
3) Inapplicable ("pieces of 'Goods and Services Tax refunded' jewelry") 
*4) Google Patents: US Patent
5) Google Patents: US Patent, same inventor, different patent
6) IATA (International Airport Transport Association) Glossary
7) IATA pdf document
*8) SECAR (company, Slovakia)
*9) Walls Bargain Center, (company, US)
*10) China Daily (news provider, China)
11) Kingfisher Cargo (airline, India)
12) Czech Airlines (Czech Republic)
13) Customs Administration (Republic of Slovenia)
*14) Alexander Henry, American (US) fur trader and entrepreneur, 19th century
15) PriorIP (patent, US)
*16) HACTL (company, China)
*17) Blog article (writer from UK)
18) Same article as above.
*19) Homepage of Austrian researcher
*20) WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization, a United Nations branch) (patent)
*
Out of the twenty results, the two that I'd like to quote are from the IATA glossary (#6) and the UK blog article (#17):



> "SHIPMENT (SHPT): One or more pieces of goods accepted by the carrier from one shipper at one time and at one address, receipted for in one lot and moving on one airwaybill or shipment record to one consignee at one destination address." (IATA glossary)





> "Bookcases are incredible pieces of goods! They are beautiful, sophisticated, refined products and I think that every person have to have at least one! With a terrific quality bookcase you can carry all of your favourite books, and put away them so that they cannot be damaged." (article)


----------



## PaulQ

I took the results by looking through 8 Google pages, which is, I feel good enough to see the general trend. Your examples confirm this.





> "SHIPMENT (SHPT): One or more pieces of goods


A technical phrase related to cargo; see other words and phrases in the quote.



> "Bookcases are incredible pieces of goods!


Colloquial/trade jargon use.

Amongst the eclectic variety of nouns the questioner used, there  happened to be “goods”. Absent context, I would discourage examples that  tend to be rare, obsolete, non-native or specialised exceptions.

Honestly, "pieces of goods", although it exists, is not a common phrase or used much outside of specialised commercial concerns. "Goods" are associated with "goods and chattels" i.e. "things." 

I agree that non-native speakers will come across non-native speakers writing English, I further agree with you when you say that this is “unreliable as a model for the proper use of English.”


----------



## pchangb

Thank you for your answers!


----------



## JungKim

The three nouns in the OP (goods, valuables, belongings) are categorized as "plural" in most dictionaries. And "cosmetics" is "plural" or "usually plural". 

No dictionary that I know of clearly says whether these nouns are countable or uncountable.

So I'm asking myself: are these countable or uncountable?


----------



## JungKim

Is there a reason my earlier post (#14) goes unanswered?


----------



## velisarius

In economics I believe they sometimes refer to "a good", but in everyday English "goods" is uncountable.The noun "cosmetic" is also countable. "Highlighter is a cosmetic."


----------



## suzi br

JungKim said:


> Is there a reason my earlier post (#14) goes unanswered?



Maybe everyone is asleep round on the West?  Be patient!


----------



## JungKim

velisarius said:


> In economics I believe they sometimes refer to "a good", but in everyday English "goods" is uncountable.The noun "cosmetic" is also countable. "Highlighter is a cosmetic."



So other than in economics, "goods" is an uncountable plural noun?
And is the same the case with "valuables" and "belongings"?


----------



## PaulQ

JungKim said:


> So other than in economics, "goods" is an uncountable plural noun. And is the same the case with "valuables" and "belongings"?


No. After some thought, I would say that, they are countable plural nouns whose singular is rare. I have just checked and this is so: Oxford English Dictionary 





> goods: 8. spec. (a) (Now only as a countable noun, chiefly pl., but occas. in sing.) Saleable commodities, merchandise, wares (now chiefly applied to manufactured articles). See also dry goods n.


----------



## JungKim

But can you count "goods", regardless of whether the singular is rare or not?
If so, you should be able to "really count" them. But can you count them like these examples?

(1) There are only three goods in the store.
(2) There are about 150 goods in the store.

If neither of these works, then how are they countable?

The same logic applies to the other nouns in the OP (at least "valuables" and "belongings").


----------



## PaulQ

Countable and uncountable nouns are not very well defined. It is rare that a word is purely uncountable, this is mainly because uncountable words comprise within them an indivisible, homogeneous category. However, often the category *is* divisible when we look closely, and then we have to reclassify the word quickly.

"Will you have sugar in your coffee?" Sugar = uncountable

"Today we will be discussing three sugars, fructose, glucose and sucrose." Sugar = countable

However, it is not as easy as this, English never is. 

One test for which one it is, is can we say, "much <word>" (uncountable) or do we have to say, "many <words>" (countable)

1.  "He has much goods in the store." or 2."He has many goods in the store." ? Obviously 2 is correct. Therefore, "goods" is countable.

It is strange that numbers can't be put easily before "goods" but it is countable.


----------



## JungKim

I thought that the only test for countability is whether numbers, like one, two, three, etc, can be put before the noun.
So the real issue here seems to be whether the scope of countable nouns is limited to those nouns you can count or is expanded to those you can't really count but you can put "many" rather than "much" before.
Now my question is why we should expand the scope of countable nouns to those you can't count.
Is there any benefit of doing so?


----------



## PaulQ

JungKim said:


> Now my question is why we should expand the scope of countable nouns to those you can't count.


That category was always there. There has been no expansion.

As I said earlier, "uncountable words comprise within them an indivisible, homogeneous category." and "goods" does not.


> Is there any benefit of doing so?


Is there any benefit in having an irregular verb "to be". Is there a benefit in not capitalising common nouns? Why should there be a benefit?

Uncountable nouns are, as I suggested, a complex and ill-defined lot, Wikipedia has an article on them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun


----------



## suzi br

JungKim, I think your problem is expecting words to fit into categories seamlessly.  

In fact the words and how we use them comes first and after that we try to impose categories onto them.  Actual usage and convention is more important than what you call it.


----------



## JungKim

suzi br said:


> JungKim, I think your problem is expecting words to fit into categories seamlessly.


And what's wrong with that?



suzi br said:


> Actual usage and convention is more important than what you call it.


Amen to that. But then again what's wrong with calling only those countable "countable" and the rest "uncountable"?


----------



## JungKim

PaulQ said:


> As I said earlier, "uncountable words comprise within them an indivisible, homogeneous category." and "goods" does not.



How about "furniture" and "jewelry"?



PaulQ said:


> Is there any benefit in having an irregular verb "to be". Is there a benefit in not capitalising common nouns? Why should there be a benefit?


If we are to use the terms "countable" and "uncountable", the terms should be used to mean what they are called, i.e., whether they can be counted or not, unless there is any substantial benefit of the terms not being used to mean what they are called. So I was asking if there is any such benefit of categorizing "goods," which cannot be counted, as a countable noun.



PaulQ said:


> Uncountable nouns are, as I suggested, a complex and ill-defined lot, Wikipedia has an article on them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun



I'm not sure if the article answers my question.


----------



## suzi br

What is wrong with it is you get bothered by things which do not matter, that's all.

Don't use the label then, they are only tools, what is actually commonplace  is far more important.


----------



## JungKim

suzi br said:


> What is wrong with it is you get bothered by things which do not matter, that's all.
> 
> Don't use the label then, they are only tools, what is actually commonplace is far more important.



Maybe it don't matter to you, because you're a native speaker and don't need all these labeling. You just know what's commonplace and what's not. 

If you'd go back to the OP and re-read the question, it's obvious that there certainly is the confusion, which I certainly can relate to and has long been "bothered" by. And I'm thinking that it's in large part due to the fact that all the dictionaries that I know of, without exception, fail to "label" the nouns in the OP as either 'countable' or 'uncountable,' but simply as 'plural' or 'usually plural,' the reason for such failing unbeknownst to me.

So I sort of took the matter into my own hands and asked how they should be labeled. And the rest is history.


----------



## Loob

JungKim, I think you might find it useful to think of "countable/uncountable" and "nouns only used in the plural" as two completely separate categorisations.

It's _not_ helpful to try to put "clothes" (for example) into either the countable or uncountable 'box'. It _is_ helpful to put "furniture" into the uncountable 'box'.


----------



## suzi br

JungKim said:


> Maybe it don't matter to you, because you're a native speaker and don't need all these labeling. You just know what's commonplace and what's not.
> 
> .



I have not clocked up nearly 6000 posts over 7 years in here, without being interested in what troubles learners about my native tongue!

In that time I have noticed that some learners get hung up on classification but ultimately in cases like this one it is not actually very helpful to you.  You still have to learn some word's features on a case by case basis


----------



## PaulQ

JungKim said:


> How about "furniture" and "jewelry"?


furniture: Movable *articles*, whether useful or ornamental, in a dwelling-house, place of business, or public building. Jewellery: *articles *specifically for personal adornment





> If we are to use the terms "countable" and "uncountable", the terms should be used to mean what they are called, i.e., whether they can be counted or not,


 They are also called "mass nouns" - start using that term if it helps you.





> So I was asking if there is any such benefit of categorizing "goods," which cannot be counted, as a countable noun.


As I said, use "mass noun".

Above I told you that 'goods' can be counted but it was rare. I am afraid that you simply cannot say that "goods" are uncountable.





> Example 20 The supply of a show house made up of *an immovable good* (house) and *white goods*/fittings is sold for a single price.* The immovable good* is liable to VAT at the rate of 13.5% whereas the *white goods/fittings* are liable to VAT at 21%. Such a supply is taxed as a multiple supply as the two elements of the supply are physically and economically dissociable from each other.


 VAT Acts 2012: Value Added Tax edited by Pat Kennedy


----------



## JungKim

PaulQ said:


> furniture: Movable *articles*, whether useful or ornamental, in a dwelling-house, place of business, or public building. Jewellery: *articles *specifically for personal adornment They are also called "mass nouns" - start using that term if it helps you.As I said, use "mass noun".



I was asking if "furniture" and "jewelry" each "comprise within them an indivisible, homogeneous category".


----------



## Loob

JungKim said:


> I was asking if "furniture" and "jewelry" each "comprise within them an indivisible, homogeneous category".


No you weren't, JungKim: you were asking whether "goods", "valuables" and "belongings" were countable or uncountable.
And I stand by my answer in post 29.


----------



## JungKim

Loob said:


> No you weren't, JungKim: you were asking whether "goods", "valuables" and "belongings" were countable or uncountable.
> And I stand by my answer in post 29.


Loob, please see post #26. And you'll see what I mean.


----------



## Loob

I repeat:





Loob said:


> JungKim, I think you might find it useful to think  of "countable/uncountable" and "nouns only used in the plural" as two  completely separate categorisations.
> 
> It's _not_ helpful to try to put "clothes" (for example) into either the countable or uncountable 'box'. It _is_ helpful to put "furniture" into the uncountable 'box'.


----------



## PaulQ

JungKim said:


> I was asking if "furniture" and "jewelry" each "comprise within them an indivisible, homogeneous category".


And I answered you.


----------



## JungKim

The reason I asked that was that I don't think that "furniture" and "jewelry" have "homogeneous" category within them. Am I missing something here??


----------



## PaulQ

JungKim said:


> The reason I asked that was that I don't think that "furniture" and "jewelry" have "homogeneous" category within them. Am I missing something here??


Yes, you are missing what I wrote. 





> *furniture*: Movable articles, whether useful or ornamental, in a dwelling-house, place of business, or public building. *Jewellery*: articles specifically for personal adornment


You are now going to complain that furniture can be *chairs, tables, bookcases, etc *and that Jewellery can be* rings, necklaces, brooches, etc. *So I am going to say that "wine" [uncountable] can be* red, white, rosé and made of every fruit you can think of.*

I also wrote: 





> They [uncountable nouns] are also called "mass nouns" - start using that term if it helps you.


JungKim,

Uncountable nouns are a useful category. But, like everything in the English language (and probably other languages too) there are no rules, just guidance.

As I have also said before, uncountable nouns (or as you are now calling them, "mass nouns") are ill-defined and a subject of much discussion at academic level. If there were a rule, there would be no discussion.


----------



## JungKim

PaulQ said:


> Yes, you are missing what I wrote. You are now going to complain that furniture can be *chairs, tables, bookcases, etc *and that Jewellery can be* rings, necklaces, brooches, etc. *So I am going to say that "wine" [uncountable] can be* red, white, rosé and made of every fruit you can think of. *



I'm going to have to be persistent, not for the sake of argument, but for the sake of learning.
And mind you, this is me not complaining, but learning.

When the context refers to "wine" comprising two or more *heterogeneous *entities as in "apple, blueberry, and other fruit *wines*", "wine" is countable and can even be plural. However, "furniture" and "jewelry" can never be countable, although they comprise a plurality of heterogeneous entities. Therefore, it seems to me that "homogeneity" is irrelevant to its countability OR *un*countability.

So, regardless of the fact that "good" _can _actually be used as a countable noun in some special register, just because the noun "goods" does not encompass homogeneous entities but heterogeneous ones does not necessarily dictate that "goods" _be_ automatically removed from the category of uncountable nouns or mass nouns, whatever you want to call it.


----------



## PaulQ

The amount you can learn at WRF is limited by the space and time that can be given over to teaching as teaching is not the aim – it is a *reference *forum.

I will ask you to read this again





> As I have also said before, uncountable nouns (or as you are now calling them, "mass nouns") are ill-defined and a subject of much discussion at academic level. If there were a rule, there would be no discussion.


Please confirm that you understand this.


----------



## JungKim

Now that I re-read it, I can understand why you say "uncountable nouns are ill-defined." They are ill-defined in part because uncountable nouns are erroneously defined to have homogeneity when IMHO they don't have anything to do with it (post #39), to which you chose not to directly respond in a substantive manner. 

Maybe you're right. It's so complicated a subject that no one here at this forum dare to tackle it. Or maybe there might be someone who would respond to post #39 and get the discussion going. So I'll just wait and see.


----------



## PaulQ

This is your post #39





JungKim said:


> When the context refers to "wine" comprising two or more *heterogeneous *entities as in "apple, blueberry, and other fruit *wines*", "wine" is countable and can even be plural. However, "furniture" and "jewelry" can never be countable, although they comprise a plurality of heterogeneous entities. Therefore, it seems to me that "homogeneity" is irrelevant to its countability OR *un*countability.


My lack of a reply was because (i) I had already explained that there are no rules, only guidance (ii) in the case of jewellery and furniture, to my mind, there is heterogeneity but that there is an overarching homogenity. (iii) it depends what you see homogeneity as. Can it be a common abstract attribute? I think so: Traffic – that which is on the roads (iv) your statement that “"homogeneity" is irrelevant to its countability OR *un*countability.” is not sustainable unless you believe that there is an absolute rule to demonstrate countability or *un*countability and, absent any evidence that there is, guidance is all that remains.

Some guidance
non-countable/countable
much/many
singular/plural; -> this is a important distinction as a non-count noun encompasses a *single* concept.
non-finite /finite
indefinite article/no indefinite article;

does seem to hold but the border of countable/uncountable is grey and vague. The more markers you can find, the more likely it is that the noun is countable or uncountable.

If you look up “celeriac” in WRF, you will see a whole thread on whether celeriac is countable or not. It is often the case that the speaker does not precisely know what he is talking about, but the listener is not bothered either and so the sentence works without having to give a name to every part of it.



> So, regardless of the fact that "good" _can _actually be used as a countable noun in some special register, just because the noun "goods" does not encompass homogeneous entities but heterogeneous ones does not necessarily dictate that "goods" _be_ automatically removed from the category of uncountable nouns or mass nouns, whatever you want to call it.


It probably does mean that, and plurals are rarely, or never, uncountable nouns. Nouns move from countable to non-countable freely; absolute countability and uncountablity are rare or non-existent, and to me, if they are there, are simply waiting to be turned into a count noun.


----------



## sinkya

velisarius said:


> In economics I believe they sometimes refer to "a good", but in everyday English "goods" is uncountable.The noun "cosmetic" is also countable. "Highlighter is a cosmetic."



Which do native speakers say to suggest your friend what to get as a gift?

1. How about a cosmetic?
2. How about cosmetics?

Is it only a matter of recommending your friend to get only one, or more than one cosmetics?


Thank you.


----------



## velisarius

"Cosmetics" isn't a word I would use often in conversation. It's the sort of word you see in a store or an advertisement. I talk about "makeup and perfumes". "How about cosmetics?" is possible though - you are suggesting a category.

"A cosmetic" in the singular is rare, but can be used to define a substance:

From the US Food and Drug Administration
http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/GuidanceRegulation/LawsRegulations/ucm074201.htm "_Is it a Cosmetic, a Drug, or Both?"_


----------



## sinkya

velisarius said:


> "Cosmetics" isn't a word I would use often in conversation. It's the sort of word you see in a store or an advertisement. I talk about "makeup and perfumes". "How about cosmetics?" is possible though - you are suggesting a category.




Thank you, velisarius!  

Is "How about makeup?" something you would say, more likely? I think "makeup" is uncountable in this situation, but if you would say it differently, please let me know. 

Thank you.


----------



## velisarius

I've never encountered "makeups", plural. "Makeup" is definitely uncountable in normal everyday use.

"What can I buy her? - How about some makeup?"


----------



## sinkya

Thank you again, velisarius!


----------



## Sun14

velisarius said:


> "Cosmetics" isn't a word I would use often in conversation. It's the sort of word you see in a store or an advertisement. I talk about "makeup and perfumes". "How about cosmetics?" is possible though - you are suggesting a category.
> 
> "A cosmetic" in the singular is rare, but can be used to define a substance:
> 
> From the US Food and Drug Administration
> http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/GuidanceRegulation/LawsRegulations/ucm074201.htm "_Is it a Cosmetic, a Drug, or Both?"_



I see you use "perfumes". I look it up and find it is a mass noun. I am confused. Would you give me some advice?


----------



## srk

Our dictionary shows it used as both a countable and uncountable noun:

She never wore perfume.
She wore expensive French perfumes.


----------



## Sun14

srk said:


> Our dictionary shows it used as both a countable and uncountable noun:
> 
> She never wore perfume.
> She wore expensive French perfumes.



I see. Thank you very much.


----------



## Sun14

PaulQ said:


> Most of those fall into the categories of
> Not by native speaker
> Colloquial idiom or saying
> Over 300 years old
> 
> *Some *goods, cosmetics, valuables, belongings.
> 
> Twenty *lots of goods*, cosmetics, valuables, belongings
> 
> Twenty *items in the* goods, cosmetics, valuables, belongings *category*
> 
> Twenty *bits and pieces, all* goods, cosmetics, valuables, belongings, *etc.*
> 
> Twenty* sorts/kinds/types* *of* goods, cosmetics, valuables, belongings,



How about:

Twenty *items from the goods, cosmetics, valuables, belongings

*I saw you post such collocation in other threads, and I think it is more clear and concise.


----------

