# Is there or are there any clothes?



## Chilly Willy

If clothes is uncountable, then why do we say "Are there any clothes in the suitcase?". Can somone please explain this to me and if possible give me some other examples.


----------



## Rob625

Hm. As a native speaker, this is the sort of think I never have to think about until someone asks.

As a language learner, and knowing learners of English as a foreign language, I do have the concept of uncountable nouns.

I think there are two classes of uncountable nouns. Most of them take the singular: 
Is  there any furniture in the house?"​
But some take the plural: 

Are  there any clothes?
People are  funny.
These trousers are  too long.​In most cases, these ones end in -s, and so they "sort of" are plural; yet you can't talk about a clothe, a people  (well, not in this sense), or a trouser.

I hope this helps.


----------



## dave

Hi Chilly,

Like Rob, this is not something I have really considered before, but I think an answer to your question might be that *clothes * is always a plural noun, and therefore must always take a plural verb.

I think this is slightly different from a standard non-countable noun, as these always (?) take singular verbs. If, in your example, you were to replace *clothes * with *clothing * (a standard non-countable noun), the following would be correct:

_Is there any clothing in the suitcase_

Hopefully a grammarian will be along soon to put us all out of our misery!

PS: I do take issue with Rob's assertion that *people * is a non-countable noun. It is definitely a countable noun:
1 person
2 people
3 people
etc.


----------



## Rob625

dave said:
			
		

> PS: I do take issue with Rob's assertion that *people * is a non-countable noun. It is definitely a countable noun:
> 1 person
> 2 people
> 3 people
> etc.



You are quite right, of course; I should not have tried to use 'people' as an example.


----------



## jimmyy

Just to confirm with you

Is it correct that one cannot say : "many clothes"
than what should one say? "much clothes"?

Thank you


----------



## nzfauna

I would use the plural form.

One would say "a lot of clothes" or "many items of clothing".


----------



## Loob

Hi jimmyy

You can definitely say "many clothes", as in _I haven't got many clothes/ Have you got many clothes?_  In an affirmative sentence, we'd be more likely to say "a lot of clothes", as NZF suggests.

You can't say "much clothes" - "clothes" is plural.


----------



## jimmyy

Loob said:


> Hi jimmyy
> 
> You can definitely say "many clothes", as in _I haven't got many clothes/ Have you got many clothes?_ In an affirmative sentence, we'd be more likely to say "a lot of clothes", as NZF suggests.
> 
> You can't say "much clothes" - "clothes" is plural.


 
For me "much clothes" sounds strange, but I'm not sure about "many clothes" because if we follow the rules of countable and uncountable, they say that "many" can't be used with uncountable words, and since "clothes" has only a plural form, I would say that "many clothes" cannot be used if we follow the grammar books.
But to my ear it sounds ok, only that I'm aware it might be a false friend with my language.


----------



## Callbarsis

"His family... They are nice people!" Though "family" is singular, we replace it with "they", right?
Then how about this one.
"His clothes... It is/They are always old and out of fashion!" Is it "It" or "They"?


----------



## Cagey

We use "they".  Here, too, we regard _clothes _as a plural.

Welcome to the forum, Callbarsis!


----------



## morro33

Chilly Willy said:


> If clothes is uncountable, then why do we say "Are there any clothes in the suitcase?". Can somone please explain this to me and if possible give me some other examples.



Well, according to what they teach me at the university "clothes" is a noun which is always plural and falls into the very same category as scissors or jeans. Thus the correct sentence is "Are there any clothes in the suitcase?".


----------



## aeterna_nox

Should we say "little clothes" or "few clothes"?


----------



## Cagey

Welcome, aeterna nox. 

We say "few clothes".


----------



## aeterna_nox

Thank you ^^


----------



## majlo

As my compatriot already suggested, the word _clothes _always takes plural, and so the verb should be used in plural, and thus "are" is correct here, not "is".

You might find the article about _plurale tantum _interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralia_tantum
A *plurale tantum* (Latin for _in the plural only_; plural  form: *pluralia tantum*) is a noun that appears only in the plural  form and does not have a singular variant for referring to a  single object. Many languages have pluralia tantum, such as the English words _clothes_, _scissors_,  _pants_, and _trousers_, ...​


----------



## mikolo

If I ask "Is this your clothes" i don't really have a problem with it, even though it is pluralia tantum.
Also, "Are there your clothes"- perfectly fine. 

I think in this case it doesn't really matter.... or am I wrong?


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Hello mikolo

You are indeed wrong. If you wish to speak and write correctly, you will use the plural forms for 'clothes' and other nouns like it such as jeans, scissors, trousers and so on.

'Are these your clothes?'

'Are they your clothes or your sister's?'

I'd say that not even the most poorly educated native speaker would use singular forms with these words.

Hermione


----------



## mikolo

I see
thanx


----------



## sunyaer

Hermione Golightly said:


> ...
> 'Are these your clothes?'
> ...


In a context where I am asking about a piece of clothing on a chair which I want to take, the above sentence doesn't seem to work with "these" in the context of one piece of clothing, does it?


----------



## JamesM

No, but then we typically wouldn't use "clothes" in that situation.  "Is this your shirt / blouse / coat?"  "Are these your shoes / trousers (pants in AE) / pajamas?"


----------



## sunyaer

JamesM said:


> No, but then we typically wouldn't use "clothes" in that situation.  "Is this your shirt / blouse / coat?"  "Are these your shoes / trousers (pants in AE) / pajamas?"



But the asker has to identify what item of the clothes is. Sometimes something looks like a coat, but it's actually something else. What is the best way to avoid this type of confusion?


----------



## JamesM

Honestly?  I usually say (and hear) "Is _this_ yours?" while holding or pointing to the piece of clothing.


----------



## sunyaer

JamesM said:


> Honestly?  I usually say (and hear) "Is _this_ yours?" while holding or pointing to the piece of clothing.


Is it that you don't want to bother saying what item of clothes it is?


----------



## JamesM

You just asked what I would say if I couldn't identify the piece of clothing.  That is what I would say if I couldn't identify it or thought there might be confusion.   If I knew it was a coat I would say, "Is this your coat?"


----------



## prof d'anglais

Can I take this discussion one stage further? Everyone agrees that "clothes" are uncountable, however, we use "many" for countable nouns and "much" for uncountable nouns. But, we can only say "how many clothes do you have?" or "I have many clothes.".
Can someone explain why, please?


----------



## Andygc

As has already been said, "clothes" is a plural form, which is why we say "many clothes". Because it's plural, we can't say "much clothes"; "much" can only be used with singular uncountables. Because "clothes" is uncountable, the question "how many clothes do you have?" is not English, since it is impossible to reply with a number: it's a typical mistake made by people learning the language.


----------



## prof d'anglais

Andygc said:


> As has already been said, "clothes" is a plural form, which is why we say "many clothes". Because it's plural, we can't say "much clothes"; "much" can only be used with singular uncountables. Because "clothes" is uncountable, the question "how many clothes do you have?" is not English, since it is impossible to reply with a number: it's a typical mistake made by people learning the language.


Thank you Andygc! 
Does anyone know of other uncountable, plural nouns, that fall into this category?


----------



## Andygc

"Goods", for a start. But not "trousers", "scissors" or "underpants", which although unusable with "much" can be asked about with "how many?" because the words have an implicit "pairs of" in their meaning.

"How many scissors do you have?" is possible, although I'd probably say "How many pairs of scissors do you have?" I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear a member of staff in a clothing shop say "How many brown trousers are there in stock?"


----------



## prof d'anglais

Andygc said:


> "Goods", for a start. But not "trousers", "scissors" or "underpants", which although unusable with "much" can be asked about with "how many?" because the words have an implicit "pairs of" in their meaning.
> 
> "How many scissors do you have?" is possible, although I'd probably say "How many pairs of scissors do you have?" I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear a member of staff in a clothing shop say "How many brown trousers are there in stock?"


"Goods", perfect, another uncountable noun that uses "many, thank you!
I'm sure there must be others, though...


----------



## Ivan_I

Andygc said:


> As has already been said, "clothes" is a plural form, which is why we say "many clothes". Because it's plural, we can't say "much clothes"; "much" can only be used with singular uncountables.


Here I get the idea that "MANY CLOTHES" is OK.



Andygc said:


> Because "clothes" is uncountable, the question "how many clothes do you have?" is not English, since it is impossible to reply with a number: it's a typical mistake made by people learning the language.


What's wrong with the question then?


----------



## Andygc

Ivan_I said:


> What's wrong with the question then?


As I already said, you can't answer with a number.
"Do you have many clothes?" "Yes."
"How many clothes do you have?"


----------



## Ivan_I

I think you have mixed two issues. First one is whether it is possible (correct) to use many with clothes. It seems that you suggest it is. The second one whether it is possible (correct) to use it in the particular sentence. You say NO, but the explanation you give has nothing to do with the first issue (where, by the way, it is established that MANY can go with CLOTHES)

It would be fair to ask WHY is it possible to say "Do you have many clothes?" then?

 It's confusing, but I see you point.

I think, MANY CLOTHES is not absolutely correct, in the first place. It should be MANY PIECES OF CLOTHES. And I think it's possible to answer to the second question using "MANY PIECES OF CLOTHES"? My point is that MANY CLOTHES is incorrect at large on its own.


----------



## AnythingGoes

Ivan_I said:


> I think, MANY CLOTHES is not absolutely correct, in the first place. It should be MANY PIECES OF CLOTHES. And I think it's possible to answer to the second question using "MANY PIECES OF CLOTHES"? My point is that MANY CLOTHES is incorrect at large on its own.


It is correct. _When I was homeless I didn't have many clothes -- really, all I had was what I was wearing at any given moment. _"Many pieces of clothes" is incorrect.


----------



## Loob

Do you have many clothes?
Do you have 27 clothes?
Do you have many pieces of clothes?
Do you have many pieces of clothing?


----------



## Ivan_I

It's a murky area. And I see glaringly illogical solutions given which, nevertheless, are conventional, I must admit.

I can spot quite a few lines on google books with PIECES OF CLOTHES which makes it hard to accept that PIECES OF CLOTHES is categorically wrong. Nevertheless, we have ITEMS OF CLOTHES in store, for those who reject PIECES.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Ivan_I said:


> ...
> I think, MANY CLOTHES is not absolutely correct, in the first place. It should be MANY PIECES OF CLOTHES. And I think it's possible to answer to the second question using "MANY PIECES OF CLOTHES"? My point is that MANY CLOTHES is incorrect at large on its own.



Unfortunately, Ivan, the entire English-speaking world seems to disagree with you.  According to Google Ngram Viewer, _many clothes_ is 20 times more common than _much clothes_, and _many pieces/items of clothes_ is non-existant.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Most native speakers would use 'many' with a negative or perhaps a question.
- I don't have many clothes.
- Do you have many clothes?
In all instances, 'a lot of' is an acceptable and natural option.
- I don't have a lot of clothes.
- Do you have a lot of clothes?
- She has a lot of clothes.
Most of my students at whatever the level were interested in using natural English. I didn't allow them to use 'many'.

For the uncountable noun 'clothes', an individual item is 'a garment', if the true description  of the item isn't known.


----------



## Andygc

Ivan_I said:


> I think you have mixed two issues.


No, I haven't. 


Ivan_I said:


> I think, MANY CLOTHES is not absolutely correct, in the first place. It should be MANY PIECES OF CLOTHES. And I think it's possible to answer to the second question using "MANY PIECES OF CLOTHES"? My point is that MANY CLOTHES is incorrect at large on its own.


I think your problem is that you do not understand the concept of an uncountable noun that is plural in form. There are a few of these in English, and "clothes" is the commonest example. We cannot count clothes (1 clothe, 22 clothes) but the word is grammatically plural. We must use "many" not "much", and we must use plural forms of verbs.


----------



## Ivan_I

Andygc said:


> No, I haven't.
> I think your problem is that you do not understand the concept of an uncountable noun that is plural in form. There are a few of these in English, and "clothes" is the commonest example. We cannot count clothes (1 clothe, 22 clothes) but the word is grammatically plural. We must use "many" not "much", and we must use plural forms of verbs.


It's not the matter of understanding or not understanding. As there is nothing particular to understand except for the way this word is traditionally used. It's only the matter of a habit and a set of historical circumstances, I suppose. Think of it yourself. You say it's ok to say "How many clothes" but it's not OK to use numerals with clothes. It's a controversial statement which can't be backed up by straight logic. Plus, not all natives agree that "much clothes" is incorrect.  
By the way, I keep coming across constructions similar to "pieces of clothes", for example, "articles of clothes" can be found. I don't know how to take it.


----------



## Loob

Have it your way, Ivan. 
The result will simply be that you continue to make non-native-speaker errors.


----------



## velisarius

Hermione's post #37 is a good guide to when we can use "many clothes" - and when we can't.


----------



## Andygc

Ivan_I said:


> *1.* It's a controversial statement which can't be backed up by straight logic. *2.* Plus, not all natives agree that "much clothes" is incorrect.
> By the way, *3.* I keep coming across constructions similar to "pieces of clothes", for example, "articles of clothes" can be found.


1. It is not a controversial statement. It's a simple statement of fact. "Clothes" is an uncountable noun which is plural in form. Logic is irrelevant.
2. If you search this forum for much clothes you will find several threads, but no native speakers who agree that "much clothes" is correct. If you use Google to search for "much clothes" you will find numerous other English grammar sites where the same point is made.
3. No you don't. A Google search will find just over 200 examples (of articles of clothes), not all of which are written by native speakers. More to the point, here is a Google books ngram which covers the options Google Ngram Viewer


----------



## AnythingGoes

Ivan_I said:


> Plus, not all natives agree that "much clothes" is incorrect.
> By the way, I keep coming across constructions similar to "pieces of clothes", for example, "articles of clothes" can be found. I don't know how to take it.


Look again. I think you'll find the native speakers are saying "much clothing" and "articles of clothing". _Clothes _is utterly unnatural in those collocations—no native speaker would use it there.


----------



## Ivan_I

Andygc said:


> 1. It is not a controversial statement. It's a simple statement of fact. "Clothes" is an uncountable noun which is plural in form. Logic is irrelevant.


As long as we are in the field of meaningful notions such as words, sentences and languages logic can't be irrelevant.
It's a simple _controversial _statement of fact. If "clothes" are uncountable and you can't count them you shouldn't use MANY then. It's in theory, of course.



Andygc said:


> 2. If you search this forum for much clothes you will find several threads, but no native speakers who agree that "much clothes" is correct. If you use Google to search for "much clothes" you will find numerous other English grammar sites where the same point is made.



Well, not all natives find MUCH unacceptable. See for yourself.

https://www.quora.com/Which-of-the-...-did-you-wash-2-How-many-clothes-did-you-wash
Some Canadian teacher votes for "MUCH clothes" (though the site's moderator refutes her idea, but it shows that there are some people who see much clothes as correct)
The Grammar Logs -- Number Four Hundred, Thirty-Three
How Much Or How Many Clothes?




Andygc said:


> 3. No you don't. A Google search will find just over 200 examples (of articles of clothes), not all of which are written by native speakers. More to the point, here is a Google books ngram which covers the options Google Ngram Viewer


It would be apt to say "NO YOU DON'T" if Google provided ZERO examples. But 200 is too many to say NO YOU DON'T.

This issue has more a theoretical value to me as I see that people go with MANY in practice. Nonetheless, it's interesting to spot a good theoretical base (which seems to be gone missing). From (my) theoretical point of view neither MANY now MUCH are suitable for clothes. Thank you guys for your input, I appreciate.


----------



## Keith Bradford

An Ngram analysis (Google Ngram Viewer) gives the following approximate percentages:

many clothes *70*

much clothing *24*
much clothes 3*

many clothing 3*
(*I've juggled these two to try to take account of the compounds where clothes/clothing are adjectival).

It is safe to conclude that _clothes _and _clothing _are uncountable; the first *behaves as* a plural and the second *behaves as* a singular.

It doesn't really help Ivan_I to hold up examples of the very few cases where unusual versions are used; it doesn't help to understand English for Ivan_I to imagine that, merely because some people use an odd version, it is normal, good or widespread practice.


----------



## Andygc

Ivan_I said:


> *I keep coming across* constructions similar to "pieces of clothes"


No, you don't. You might occasionally do so.


Ivan_I said:


> From (my) theoretical point of view neither MANY now MUCH are suitable for clothes.


There is no theoretical basis to the language - unless your theory is that the English language has many illogicalities. There is the simple fact that, in English, the word "clothes" is plural in form and grammar but uncountable. There is no controversy. You have found a thread in quora.com where one person seems to think that "much clothes" is acceptable. Everybody else contributing to that thread disagrees. 
The Canadian teacher in your second link is muddled by trying to be logical, but still rejects "much clothes"





> "Clothes" is a plural noun, meaning _things_ that we wear. *And since they are countable things, we use "many" to describe them*. "There are too many clothes in this suitcase." I'm trying to imagine a way in which "much clothes" makes sense: "How much clothes can you buy for a hundred dollars"? I think I'd still use "many" in that sentence. I will respectfully disagree with your daughter's teacher, even though I might get in trouble for doing so.


Her error is highlighted.
Your third link is to a forum where it is evident that there are few native English speakers responding to the question.



Keith Bradford said:


> it doesn't help to understand English for Ivan_I to imagine that, merely because some people use an odd version, it is normal, good or widespread practice.


Indeed.


----------



## AnythingGoes

Ivan_I said:


> If "clothes" are uncountable and you can't count them you shouldn't use MANY then.


You can use "many", as in _The refugees didn't have many clothes._ You can*not* say _He only has ten clothes__._


----------



## Forero

_Clothes_ is always plural and uses all the grammar associated with the term "plural".

Other examples:

_pants
scissors
oats
grits_

Pants and scissors are examples of a large special category that allows "pair(s) of". _Clothes_, _oats_, and _grits_ do not.


----------



## Englishmypassion

I think it'd have been better if we had not used the term uncountable but simply said that "clothes" is always plural in form but it's not used with any specific numbers, though we can say "many clothes." It's the plurality, suggesting countability, of items of clothing included that resulted in the word _clothes _I think. No dictionaries call clothes uncountable by the way, only plural.


----------



## Andygc

Dictionaries vary in the terms used. Some use "mass noun" when describing singular uncountables. 


Englishmypassion said:


> it's not used with any specific numbers


There's a word for that - a single word - "uncountable".


----------



## Englishmypassion

Andygc said:


> Dictionaries vary in the terms used. Some use "mass noun" when describing singular uncountables.



All the dictionaries I consulted just call "clothes" plural, neither uncountable, nor mass noun.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Andygc said:


> There's a word for that - a single word - "uncountable".



Not necessarily, for example jeans. Uncountable things should not be plural or many logically, I think, unless we use uncountable to mean too many to count.


----------



## Forero

I might say "clothes" is noncount plural. I don't use the word _uncountable_ to mean "noncount" since to me "uncountable" means "that can't be counted", "too numerous to count", or (in mathematics) "more numerous than the set of all positive whole numbers".

"Clothes" can be considered noncount because it does not allow a singular-plural distinction. In contrast, the noun "sheep" is a count noun because it does allow such a distinction: "The sheep I saw are on the other side of the fence" (plural) and "The sheep I saw is on the other side of the fence" (singular) are both good sentences, but they have different meanings.


----------



## Andygc

Englishmypassion said:


> Not necessarily, for example jeans. Uncountable things should not be plural or many logically, I think, unless we use uncountable to mean too many to count.


 The term _uncountable_ and its alternative _noncount_ mean that the word so described cannot be counted - they cannot be quantified with a number. I have no idea why you think _jeans_ is different. In normal use it is plural and uncountable (or noncount). If I have three pairs of jeans I have some jeans. I don't have three jeans. If I have 15 items of clothing I have some clothes. If I had 532 items of clothing I might think that I had many clothes. I don't have 532 clothes. They are uncountable - they cannot be counted. I don't see any problem in understanding this specific meaning of the word in the context of describing words.

And yet again, what has logic to do with it? Grammar is not a study in logic, it is a way of describing the way a language works. The quirks of English grammar include uncountable plural words.

And sheep is countable because we can and do say "25 sheep".


----------



## Hinata Sama

Loob said:


> Do you have many clothes?
> Do you have 27 clothes?
> Do you have many pieces of clothes?
> Do you have many pieces of clothing?


Hi, Loob.
I just saw in an article, the author used "a pair of clothes".

Text:
As part of its wish to honour the unsung heroes, the Sulakshya Seva Samithi felicitated five municipal sanitation workers, who collect garbage in residential colonies in Hanamkonda, here on Tuesday.

Sanitation staff Swamy, Saraiah, Komuraiah, Sunitha and Bhagya, who work in Srinagar Colony (South), were felicitated with a shawl, memento and* a pair of clothes* in recognition of their service.


Do you think this is a grammar error or does it means something else other than a pair of clothing?


----------



## Loob

Hinata Sama said:


> Hi, Loob.
> I just saw in an article, the author used "a pair of clothes".
> [...]
> Do you think this is a grammar error or does it means something else other than a pair of clothing?


 It's an error, I'm afraid, Hinata Sama. I don't know what the writer intended it to mean: perhaps just "some clothes", or maybe "a suit"?


----------



## velisarius

It may be an Indian English expression, but I don't know how standard it is there. In BE/AE it would be wrong:


_With a backpack, a pair of clothes and meagre money, 26-year-old Shubham Dharmsktu set out to travel from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, on foot _

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088446353670373376


----------

