# "how much" or "how many" - for "money"



## garipx

I am sure some people here will immediately say "hey, this topic should be opened in the English subforum, not here which is about "Etymology/History of languages".

But, this is a question that can not be answered, or can not be answered correctly by any person whose native language is English, either. They have not.
So, this is relevant to this part of forum, history/etymology of languages in general, of English in particular. You'll see.

As for one who learnt English later, I was taught that, as a general rule, it is "how many" for countables and it is "how much" for uncountables.
For specific example, "money", they say "how much money" because money is "uncountable" (according to them)...

Now, we have to talk about Language&Mathematics as there is this criteria, "countability"... According to linguists(?), it seems that "money" is an "uncountable" thing as they say "how much money"...

Lets also give examples, eg, dollar and cent not to be repeated here by posters who'll reply in this thread.

They say "how many dollars" as "dollar" is countable. And, some say "how much cent" and some say "how many cent", there is no agreement in that, at least between people who I know of, mostly Americans. Even this uncertainty in "how many cent or how much cent" shows that there is a problem, in "countability" of money which is also seen in the language English.

So, lets start.

Money is countable or uncountable, according to the linguists?
(etymology of "money" is also to be mentioned if necessary, and, I guess, necessary, to answer such a question.)


----------



## berndf

garipx said:


> And, some say "how much cent" and some say "how many cent", there is no agreement in that, at least between people who I know of, mostly Americans.


I very much doubt that. I haven't found a single attestation that wasn't an obvious mistake (like confusion of _cent _and _per cent_).


----------



## garipx

berndf said:


> I very much doubt that. I haven't found a single attestation that wasn't an obvious mistake (like confusion of _cent _and _per cent_).



Of course, we (Americans and I) didn't discuss, therefore, "there is no agreement between Americans" is not a definitely appearent nonagreement. I should have said that I have seen some people have said <how much cent> while majority have said <how many cent>. Perhaps, it was just to differentiate from the "coin" as conversation was about the coin. I am not counting those many "how much cent" I have seen on various forums, because they are not language lesson forums. Anyway, this "cent" issue is not important at the moment, but, may be important later if "coin" too is involved in our discussions here and also, if some questions here such as "cent is   money or not?" arise.

Without going into details of various forms of money, at least for the moment, this topic question: ... "money is countable or not" ... from EHL (Etymology&Lingustic&Historical) point of view and also, of course, from mathematical point of view.


----------



## garipx

Maybe, this topic needs a little stimulation as what exactly the question here may not be clear. Lets summarize first what are known.

There are two keywords here: Money and Countability.

I'm not a linguist, so, I checked on the net:

Etymology: Money (no need to give any reference as these were written everywhere on the net)

- The word "Money" originally from the Latin word _moneta_, meaning 'mint' or 'currency', which was later adapted as _moneie_ in Old French.
_- Moneta_ was originally a title given to the Goddess Juno, in whose temple money was minted in the earlier times, in Rome.
- and there is this on a forum (I don't know if it is speculation or not): The word "Money" is derived from "Mann" in Tamil means Land (more preciously mud)
Maybe, there are other claims, but, I leave them to people here on this forum.

Countability: In the English, related to "Much" and "Many": Ok, it seems that, in some languages like English, two different words are used depending on the countability while in some languages, for ex in Turkic, single word (çok) is used for the both, for countable and for uncountable quantities. This differentiation in this example into two words or integration into one word is probably due to the interaction between the languages and the mathematics, so, this is about history of language and mathematics. Since there are two different words (much and many) in English, English fits better than Turkic in questioning "money is countable or not" relating language&mathematics.

Combining these, etymology of money and countability in the language:

Option "Moneta", a given title to a Goddes, as origin of "Money" makes one thinks "money is countable" if Moneta is a person. If not, it is flue.
Option "Mann", mud in Tamil, as origin of "Money" makes one thinks "money is uncountable".

From history to today. (for centuries)
Current usages of "Money" in sentences, such as "cash flow, liquidity, etc", tell that "money is uncountable" and it is considered "liquid" like "water." That must be why we see "how much money"...

(For those who may have any objection to these and for those who may prefer to add somethings, I give a pause here to myself before stimulating further.)


----------



## Dib

If money is used as a countable noun, I would interpret it as referring to currencies. Like "Cambodia uses two different moneys at the same time". The usage doesn't still sound quite idiomatic to me, but I believe, the grammar works. But then, I am no native English speaker. So...

In any case, the idea is that money (in its normal sense) is "counted" (rather "measured") in the units like dollar and lira, and not in discrete pieces or instances. Therefore it is uncountable. I think, it helps to compare it with some nouns which can be both countable and uncountable depending on the meaning, e.g. time. The time that is measured in minutes and days is uncountable (How much time have we got?). But then there is also the countable "time" (Turkish. defa/kere), e.g. How *many* times have you visited India, and how *much* time have you spent on each visit?



garipx said:


> Countability: In the English, related to "Much" and "Many": Ok, it seems that, in some languages like English, two different words are used depending on the countability while in some languages, for ex in Turkic, single word (çok) is used for the both, for countable and for uncountable quantities. This differentiation in this example into two words or integration into one word is probably due to the interaction between the languages and the mathematics, so, this is about history of language and mathematics. Since there are two different words (much and many) in English, English fits better than Turkic in questioning "money is countable or not" relating language&mathematics.



You need to be careful about a couple of things. Countability is a grammatical category, that exists in some languages (like English, but I believe also Turkish, please read on). And even when different languages share this apparently identical category, they may differ in exactly which nouns belong to which category. Like most grammatical categories, there is always some amount of randomness involved, e.g. in English, advice and information are uncountable (don't ask me why!), but the corresponding words in Bengali (pɔramɔrso and tottho) are countable. As a learner, you just have to learn it!

Coming to the case of Turkish. I think, you are simplifying the thing a bit. True, you can use çok/kaç directly with all nouns, but try to add "tane". Can you ask "kaç tane para"? (How many moneys?) - at least in the normal meaning of the modern para, not the Ottoman para coins.


----------



## Gavril

garipx said:


> They say "how many dollars" as "dollar" is countable. And, some say "how much cent" and some say "how many cent", there is no agreement in that, at least between people who I know of, mostly Americans. Even this uncertainty in "how many cent or how much cent" shows that there is a problem, in "countability" of money which is also seen in the language English.



I've heard things like _how much cent*s*_ (plural) in colloquial speech, but not _how much cent_ (though it's possible that people have said it).

_how much cents_ seems like an example of the same phenomenon as e.g. _There were less birds in the tree_ (as opposed to the more standard _fewer birds_) -- namely, a blurring of the distinction between countable and non-countable modifiers. But even if the distinction between the modifiers (_less_ vs. _fewer_, _how much_ vs. _how many_, etc.) is eroding to some degree, the distinction between countable and non-countable nouns (_money _vs. _cents_, etc.) still seems fairly robust.


----------



## garipx

Dib,
It is good you reminded "time" and "days, minutes, etc" as analogy to "money" and "dollar, etc", respectively. Our topic here will probably be more about such analogies. However, to focus on "money" and its "countability or not", yes, we also need to look also at other languages and I ask this. Is there any word in any language that means/implies "money" itself is countable?

Yes, in Turkish, we don't say "kaç tane para? (how many money?)", but, we don't also say "kaç tane lira? like it is normally said in English (how many dollar?)
Also, in Turkic, there is no opposite word (for uncountables like "much") to "tane" (piece) (used for countables like "many"). So, shortly, we use "kaç" for the both (how many and how much) and it is not clear "kaç" here is for countables or uncountables and answer to "kaç?" is again one word (çok) unlike English with two words (many and much) that seperate countability clearly unlike Turkic. This doesn't mean that there is no countability in Turkic, but, "countability" in Turkic just isn't as clear as in English in particularly to "money". So, I stay with English when questioning about "money" and its "countability or not". And, it seems that "uncountability of money" is a general rule in any and all languages including English. So, chosing English fit the purpose here, as it reflects general stiuation (uncountability of money) in all world languages and it has a clear specific word (much) seperated clearly from countables (many.)

Lets not go into other things such as "advice", "information", etc whether they are countables or not and in which languages they are countables and uncountables.
Since "money" (or para or whatever in any other language) is "uncountable" thing in all languages (unless claimed otherwise by an example) lets focus on "money" only as it is also one of most important things, maybe, the most, for everybody in the world.

So, to focus more on "money" and "countability", and to make it a fruitful discussion, is it ok to go with analogies hereafter? Expressions such as "money is like water flow", "money is like time flow", etc. are expressions that tell about "money" and its language history sufficiently? (if this, analogy making, is ok, we can go ahead without doubt?)

Gavril,
Thanks for clarification about "cent". I guess we will also come back to it again, later, once "money" is clarified more. (I have some doubt, money itself was actually maybe a countable thing. But, I can't bring any evidence, at least for the moment, to prove it or to get rid of my doubt. So, this topic.)


----------



## Dymn

"Money", *as a magnitude*, seems an *uncountable *concept to me (and this is how English speakers treat it). You cannot (or very rarely) count in magnitudes, you count in units. You don't count in lengths, you count in meters, feet or whatever.

However, the name for the magnitude may indeed be derived from the unit, in this case from the word for "coin" or the currency in use at the time of the coinage (pun intended). For example, in Catalan, the word for "money" is a plurale tantum: _diners_. The origin of the word is a plural of _diner _"denary", an ancient currency that since became obsolete long ago is rarely used as a singular noun. But even so, at the time both meanings co-existed ("denary" and "money" when pluralized) you cannot argue "money" was countable because what you could count was denaries, not money. If you said _tres diners_, people would understand "three denaries", never "three moneys", which in my opinion makes no sense, in any language.

What can be argued, is whether the primary form of the noun for a concept in a given language is countable or uncountable. "Advice" is uncountable in English because it refers to the general concept and not a single piece of it, and this is why it must resort to other methods to count "advice", just as you would resort to euros, dollars or whatever to count money. However, it is (mostly) countable in Romance languages because it indeed refers to a single piece of advice, and the reverse method to imply the general concept might be pluralizing it, for example.

So it's not like the same exact concept might be countable or uncountable depending on the language. Just like "eyeglasses" is the same thing worldwide, but different languages have different strategies to mean the same concept, as well as that of a single eyeglass.



garipx said:


> - and there is this on a forum (I don't know if it is speculation or not): The word "Money" is derived from "Mann" in Tamil means Land (more preciously mud)


I don't know where you got that from but I'm pretty sure it's false.



garipx said:


> Option "Moneta", a given title to a Goddes, as origin of "Money" makes one thinks "money is countable" if Moneta is a person. If not, it is flue.


As I understand it, "moneta" came to mean "mint, currency" after a kind of coincidental geographical reference, just as the name for "silhouette" happens to be a Basque surname, but the origin of that surname doesn't have anything to do semantically with the word that followed after. So if we are to deduce the countability of the primary concept of "money" in English from etymology, this story starts with "mint, currency". I don't think this has to do with the discussion, but well.


----------



## garipx

Dymn,

Thanks. I added "length" and "meter, etc" as an analogy to "money" and "dollar, etc", respectively, to my analogy list (liquid, flow, time, length - money.)

But, I am not sure if I understood your second paragraph well. On a coin collectors website, I learnt some coin currency names in ancient Romans time. For example, 1aureus=2quinarii=25denarii=50quinarii=100sestertii=200dupondii=etc... Here, the word "denarii" (plural of denarius) looks similar to the word in Catalan you mentioned "diners" (plural of denary), but, I understand "denarius" in the coin is like "cent" and "denarii" is like "cents", that's "unit/s" of "money". So, plural tantum "diners" is somethings like that rather than "money"? Or, exactly, "diners=money"?.. I mean, as a conclusion, my question to you to be sure is that "diners" in Catalan is countable or uncountable? If I did understand correctly, "diners too is uncountable", right? (this is important because if "diners" is "countable", or if there is such a word which breaks the rule "money is uncountable", then, the generalization "money (and its any corresponding word in any language in the world) is uncountable" will fail. If this generalization to all languages about "money" is true, then, we can continue as we will have found that "uncountability of money" is valid in all languages.)


----------



## Testing1234567

That you can count the amount of water in milliliters does not make water countable.

Similarly, that you can count the amount of money in dollars does not make money countable.


----------



## garipx

Testing1234567,

Although "length" is already mentioned, ok, "volume" and "liters, etc" too can be added to the analogy list about "money" as some volumes may not have lineer (directly measurable) lengths (eg, a rain droplet, its volume is measured indirectly, by measuring mass and by calculation. Lets add also "mass" and, eg, "kg, etc" as another analogy to "money and dollar".) I guess these analogies/similarities are enough to understand what the money is, from point of view of countability, that also have interactions with languages.

Lets summarize analogies now.
I don't know if it is a linguistic notation for analogy or not, but, there is a notation not widely known, used for analogy. It is "::"
Lets use it and this mathematical notation "{ }" for set and "( )" for subset.

So, with the criteria "countability", here are some of our analogies:

{MONEY, dollar} :: {(LENGTH, meter), (VOLUME, liter), (MASS, kg), (TIME, minute), (LIQUID, flow-rate), (ELECTRICITY, for ex watthours or joule), ... } (*)

Now, with this we have, normally, I should go to a forum where "physics", "economy" and "mathematics" are talked. But, I'll stay here as we don't need advance knowledge of physics, economy and mathematics and some elementary knowledge in these fields is sufficent and, main question here is related to what we really understand from "money", relevant to "language".

Ok, up to now, no any counter example (there is a word for "money" in 'that' language and it is "countable") has been given, all people here have said "money is uncountable" in all languages. Of course, we may not know all languages details as there are hundreds of languages in the world and not all people in the world is member of this forum. However, to be able to go ahead, following methodology, we need to make an "assumption", by extrapolation "what is known" (money is uncountable) in languages that we know to "what is unknown" (money is uncountable really?) in all languages we don't know. Supposing this "assumption" (money is uncountable in all languages in the world) is valid, we can go ahead now.

So, we have this analogy list (*) above in our hand now. Since the right hand side of analogy "::" are things known in the physics, for simplicity, we can compare  them with money. Are they "really" analogies to "money"? That's, analogy between {MONEY, dollar} and, for ex, {VOLUME, liter} is crystal clear to you? Probably, so. Indeed, it looks so. It is probably a common view also for mathematicans and for economists who are using some terms such as "cash flow", "liquidity of money", et. and they are doing calculations accordingly, according to comman acceptance, "money is uncountable"... Crystal clear... ?
(if things upto now are ok, then, I'll continue, later, I need to go out now.)


----------



## Dymn

_Diner _"denary", is a plain countable noun, you can say without any problem _tres diners _"three denaries". As you would do with any currency, just that this one is obsolete.

But _diners _"money", even if it derives from a countable noun using a typical method for countable nouns (pluralization), is uncountable. Just because, as a universal idea, you can't count *in *a magnitude, you count *in *units.

I think your analogies are well-founded, they are based on this idea of magnitude-unit pairs.

However I think it is dangerous to say that the "countability" of some words is a universal intrinsic feature. Because the primary word for it may refer to either one single piece or the general concept, and by definition, they are countable and uncountable, respectively, depending on the language.

So we can safely say that "advice" is uncountable in English but countable in Romance languages. However, this is because they do not strictly refer to the same thing. The former refers to the general concept, and the latter to a single piece of it. That's why, by definition, one is uncountable whereas the other one is countable.

This is just my five cents (pun intended again).


----------



## garipx

Dymn (and, et al.)

Since you frequently warned me about "countability" that may differ from language to language depending on the word (advice, etc), lets fix a thing here first, to avoid bifurcation/branching toward an undesired chaos in our conversation here.

"Countability" here in this topic is narrowed to the countability in money, that is, to "mathematical countability", like counting numbers "1, 2, 3, and so on" that is how we count money by "discretizing" it into some units such as "dollar."

So, here in this topic, the universality is not the universality (or not) of "countability. Since it is narrowed to money we can write this sentence comfortably, right?
... "uncountability of money is universal in all languages"...
(unless stated otherwise, with a counter-example "word" in a language corresponding to "money".)

Diners in Catalan: So, from whatever it was evoluted, its final form "diners" is equivalent to "money", they both are uncountable. So, we can write analogy above (*) also for "diners as

{DINERS, pesoto/euro now} :: {(  ), (  ), ... } ... (same can be written for any "word" for "money" in any language.)

Since we are using English here in our communication, lets use {MONEY, dollar} pair, also to simplify for those non-members who are surfing, just viewing here shortly, on the net.

Lets summarize all talks here in a single line, by rewriting analogy (*) here again, however, by chosing only one (the best one, most familiar to the common public) of subsets in the set at the right hand side of analogy (*). Result is:

{MONEY, dollar} :: {LIQUID, liter}
where the words in capital letters are uncountable while the words in small letters are countables as they are units.

Lets use "cent" instead of "dollar" as the cent is the real unit value name of that money.
(no need to go into detail of "liter" such as "milliliter, nanoliter, etc" where "milli, nano, etc" are somethings else, irrelevant to the topic.)

So, final simplified version of our analogy is:

{MONEY, cent} :: {LIQUID, liter}

This shortened version of analogy conforms also with "mathematical economy" or "economy mathematics" as they use similar terms "liquidity, cash flow, etc." in their calculations. And, all "money mathematics" is built on this philosophy (or reality?) that says "money is like liquid which is uncountable. Its unit, eg, cent is like liter of liquid which is countable."

Now, we can talk about this analogy, that simplifies the topic, "money's uncountability", universal in the languages.
(If there is no any nonagreement at all among all of us, I'll try to stimulate/stir/blurr this "crystal clear" result. However, later, a cup of coffee time for me.)

Let me rewrite final simplified version of analogy here as last line in this post, as my attemps will be to "break" this analogy "::"

{MONEY, cent} :: {LIQUID, liter}


----------



## Dib

I think, I personally agree with your sets of analogy. I am also okay with building further on the *assumption*:



garipx said:


> Supposing this "assumption" (money is uncountable in all languages in the world) is valid, we can go ahead now.



as long as it is clear that this is purely an assumption - an axiom to build an axiomatic system on. The evidence presented in this thread for its actual validity is negligible. Our sample size and diversity is too low to get any such statistical confidence.


----------



## garipx

Before attempting to "break" this commonly accepted analogy above which I simply write with notation "::", let me tell a little math first for those who may say "how in the world money appears like liquid in mathematics?"

Liquid/fluid/flow. These are "continuum" things and continuum is an uncountable thing according to the physics&mathematics unless it is discretized into pieces.

Mathematicans handling "money" in their calculations see money as a "continuum", such as liquid/fluid/flow, that's why we hear "liquidity, cash flow, etc" from economists who are using terms of mathematicans&physicist actually.

Ok, garipx, give an example?

Since "countability" is mostly related to "mathematics of numbers", lets write here one simple equation so that you can see "most important numbers" in mathematics, used also in various fields from physics to engineering to economy, etc. in one simple equation.  Some of you probably know it.

It is called Euler Identity (EI): e^(i.Pi) + 1 = 0.

where
"e"=2,71828... (three dots mean "etc")
"i"=square root of "-1", so, imaginary number.
"Pi"=3,14159...
"1" and "0" = you already know.

I won't go into details of this equation, what the hell this equation in reality is, etc. They are not on-topic here.
I wrote this here just to show "numbers" in one simple line, purposely.

Lets pick "e" here which is called "e"uler number, which is an "irrational number", that's, numbers after comma never end, that's, never repeat.
So, we can say this "e" is an uncountable number. And, this "e" is used also in calculations of continuous compound interest rate for your money in the bank account.

So what? What you see in your bank account at the end of a period is, say, $7489,27, but, it is a "cut/rounded" figure. In a mathematican's hand, this figure is, maybe, "7489,2739340231..." See difference? (forget about "negligibility" here after "0,27..." just because it is "$", we are talking here about "money" and "its un/countability".

Why such a "strange" number "7489,2739340231..." appeared in hands of mathematicans here, specifically in this interest-rate example?
Because they use, for ex, "e" (2,71828...) which is irrational, uncountable number in their money interest rate calculations. Uncountable contiuum such as Liquid/fluid/flow in mathematics appears in such numbers like "e".

So what? Using "e" in bank interest calculations is wrong? It's another story we can talk later. Point of this post is "how uncountability of money appears in money mathematics". It appears, for ex, in use of number "e" which is uncountable number. We see this now. Money mathematics in detail is not our topic here, we can talk about it elsewhere, or some simple basic things here later.

So, isn't it good as it fits analogy MONEY::LIQUID well? I can not use the word "certainly" when answering this...
What if this MONEY::LIQUID analogy is not a correct analogy? What happens? Money mathematics will totally fail then? No, but, there will be a "repairement" in "all money mathematics." And, to do this, we need to be sure if there is any error to be repaired, and we cannot do anything without talking, so, "language", and it is what we are doing now. Having also said these in this post, now, lets question this analogy:

{MONEY, cent} :: {LIQUID, liter}

(Ps: Dib, I saw your post when I was writing my this post. Yes, I am aware (you probably are more aware than me as I am not a linguist) of that "sample" info here in this thread is probably insufficient to make such a generalization "uncountability of money is universal in all languages". My assumption here is based on what you posters here said and on the silence not opposing this generalization. So, if we all here and scientists (mathematicans, etc) agree in that assumption, it is not my assumption only. If there is an error or not in this assumption, "uncountability of money is universal", what we will be doing here in this thread is this, questioning, using analogy, as it is done by sciences also about money. Ok, to keep our talks shorter and in a methodology, step by step, lets write this analogy again as last line of this post:


{MONEY, cent} :: {LIQUID, liter}


----------



## garipx

(you can go to the bottom, to the last paragraph directly, if you don't have time to read this long post.)

Instead of this analogy {MONEY, cent} :: {LIQUID, liter},

if we chose, for ex, this analogy {MONEY, cent} :: {TIME, minute},

could it be better?

Maybe, but, then, our coversation would have been more conceptual or more philosophical in money-time analogy.
In case of money-liquid analogy, this is quasi-conceptual, less philosophical as liquid has a physical form and money too has a physical form.
Their main common character of money and liquid is their uncountability and this is our main reason for making analogy between them and it is sufficient to chose liquid for our need. Their existing physical forms also keep us in reality more than that we can do with analogy money-time.

So, it is "sufficient best" to take "liquid", among available things, as an analogy to "money" for our purpose here that's to question "money's uncountability."

Now, lets write it here again to focus and question this analogy:

{MONEY, cent} :: {LIQUID, liter}

Here, "cent" and "liter" are to be discussed later as they are obviously "countables"...

Since we are to learn about "money" here that we "suppose" we don't know, then, we should look at its analogy, i.e. "liquid"...

LIQUID/FLUID/FLOW.

These are terms in the physics. Without going into modern physics, if we make classifications of materials, these are forms of materials in classical physics:
... solid, liquid/fluid, gas ...

Solid and liquid/fluid are considered as "contiuum" in classical physics and their math calculations are done accordingly, while gas is considered as "particles" and its math calculations are done accordingly.

So, lets eliminate "gas" as "money" in math calculations is "not" handled like "particles", otherwise, "money" would have been considered as "countable".
Solid does not fit, either, as it doesn't "flow".

So, we confirm "liquid/fluid", also due to its visible "flowability" character which "money" too has, another commonly accepted property of "money".

These (solid, liquid, gas) forms are forms that have been studied much by many scholars in the history and today. So, we know a lot about these.

NOW...

I'll write here another "new" material form which has been academically much less studied than those (solid, liquid, gas) and a few years ago, one of few researcher studying  that "new" form of material had called it "4th form of material" after 3 forms of materials (solid, liquid, gas).

What is that "new" material form? Don't be surprised.

WHEAT/GRAIN.

How comes!? This is not new!... Well, that's why I used " " when I was writing "new". (a little irony, but, still new, as it is new to the science community actually.)

How new?
Question to any person: Wheat/grain is solid? or liquid? or gas-like particle?
Depending on what you are studying, it is solid, and also liquid, and also gas.
You can see these forms in "wheat/grain" with your insight view, and, even eye-visually.
But, since we chosed "liquid/fluid" as analogy to "money", you can ask "how in the world wheat/grain can be correlated to the liquid!?"...

Have you ever seen a combine harvester "pouring" wheat in harvesting or wheat "moving" in an open channel at flour milling factory? Wheat just acts like a liquid, with an engineering approximation, it can also be called "flow" and fluid flow formulas can be used also for "wheat flow" at an engineering approximation level. ("approximation" is another keyword here in "money", we may talk about it later.)

Ok, here, not many people may know these matematical formulations of flows, his words of "garipx" may not be enough. It is not necessary to know mathematics of flows, even visually, you can see wheat flow in a channel as "liquid flow", "solid flow" like mud flow in a truck trailer on which wheat flows slowly, and "gas/particle flow" when a handful of wheat is thrown into the air.

SO, BEST ANALOGY for "MONEY" is "WHEAT/GRAIN"... better than "liquid" analogy.

When wheat is handled as a solid, it is "uncountable", it is counted only by its volume/mass/weight (in cubicmeter or kg, lb, etc.)
BUT, because of this way of counting wheat by "kg, etc" in "trade", its countability of wheat/grain as particle "piece" is usually forgotten especially by "scholars" in general and by "mathematicans" in particular in sciences of related fields, again, because of their minds on economy/commerce/trade when they see "money". This countability by "piece" DOES exist also in the countability of "real money", eg, "coin".

SO, here is my claim: instead of this analogy, {Money, cent} :: {Liquid, liter}, this analogy should be used:

{MONEY, cent} :: {WHEAT/GRAIN, piece} ... (this will also change "money mathematics" and "money language" as well.)

(Also, it'll make more sense as "cent" too has a particle physical form, as "coin".)

Here you are... (waiting for your attacks, to the claim here.)


----------



## Dib

garipx said:


> Here you are... (waiting for your attacks, to the claim here.)



My main question to you is: "What does all this have to do with Etymology, History of languages, and Linguistics", please? I hope you are getting to that aspect soon.

Apart from that ... I believe, your concept of "countability" as used in Mathematics is unsound. Since there is no such concept in Mathematics as an "uncountable number" as far as I know and "countability" is defined for a set, not a number, when you say:


garipx said:


> So, we can say this "e" is an uncountable number.


I guess, you really mean the following:
If the digits of the decimal (or any other rational-base) representation of e are put together in an ordered set (say, X), it will be uncountable.
However, that assertion would be wrong. X will be *countably* infinite. You can very easily define a one-to-one mapping between the elements of X and the set of all natural numbers, e.g. by using the position of the element in X. That is the classic definition of a countably infinite set.

---

Anyways, I would like to wait to find out what language-related issue this discussion brings up ultimately.


----------



## garipx

Dib, 

(I'll answer your main question "what all these have to do with this EHL forum?" after a few words about "mathematics" you quoted/mentioned.) 

I am not a mathematican either though I had used some theoretical pure mathematics in my research studies, about chaos, more than two decades ago. 

People, especially pure theoretical mathematicans, say mathematics is "exact" science. Maybe true, maybe not. 
But, when it comes to "money" I call their pure theoretical mathematics as "over-engineered" mathematics. What I mean by this is that:

Lets forget "e" (2,71828..etc), instead, lets take another similar number that is related to the term you used "countably infinite". 

0,999999999999999999999...(to infinity) = 1.

There is such a claim, whether you call it hypothesis or theorem or law. To me, it is "unprovable" equality as there is "infinity" in this logic of equality.

When it is money, engineering approach is followed, that's, the number, two digits after comma, is cut. Current reality.
Imagine if our manager in the industry was a mathematican, he would have written money in this form: $0,999999999999...!
This is not "exact" when it is about "money", it is just "over-engineering". 

How can we talk about "countability" of this number "0,9999999999999..."? (forget about its potential equivalency to 1. Money is not infinite.) 
If this number "0,999999999..." is considered countable, we need to find "99999999999...." (without comma between numbers) by multiplying "10000000..." so that we can reach at a "unit" that is a necessity to call it a countable. So, since we can never make comma disappear in "0,9999999999...", therefore, I call it "uncountable" number. Same happens for "e", "pi", etc. 

On the other hand, for example, we can do this eliminating comma for number "325,76". Like we do in "$325,76", when we multiply by "100", "comma" between numbers "325,76" disappears, and, "$325,76" becomes "32576 cents"... This is countable, one by one, as "1,2,3,etc" till we reach "32576". 

We can NOT do same operation for "irrational numbers" such as "e" in that numbers after comma never ends, assumption, ends at the infinity, a blurry term. 
Ok, but, we use number "infinity" in mathematics? Yes, but, it is not a number actually, just a symbol, an indefinite symbol and all practical calculations using "infinity" are "cut" after a certain order of magnitue level and it is called "approximation." What is done in money calculations, even if "e" or "infinity" is used in calculations, at the end, cutting two digits after comma, that's a "centum" level "appromixation." 

Anyway, lets not go further about theoretical mathematics. Fixing this reality is enough, "money is not infinite" which is another thing about "money" that tells us potential countability of money. (with analogy "money::wheat", no more potential, countability of money is real.)

All these mind confusions occuring in money calculations is due to the analogy of "money" to "liquid", handling money as if it is liquid... which is wrong, my claim here. 

So, what has these with this EHL forum? We are discussing "un/countability of money" here. I claimed now "money is countable thing" by making a new analogy of "money" to "wheat" unlike standard commonly accepted analogy of "money" to "liquid" which is uncountable. 

So, according to analogy "money::liquid", it is "how much money" while according to (new) analogy "money::wheat" it is "how many money". 
So, according to this new claim, "how much money" is a historical error in the language (probably by scholars of old old days) to be repaired to "how many money."... IF my this claim is false, then, prove that "money is uncountable" is true... How can you do that without using mathematics&language? Shall I just simply accept how it has been said throughout the history and today? I question... till "1cent"... When it is said to you "do you have "1cent?", yes, it is a language, but, what do you understand from this? If you "really" have "1cent" in your pocket, you answer it "yes, I have "1cent". But, when you don't have "1cent", but, when you have "$1", do you still answer "I have 100cent?"... Such an answer, linguistically too, will be illogical. Because you are saying "I have 100cents, but, I don't have 1cent."... an illogical saying in a language and this has been said by all in the world and in all time.

So, your main question "what these have to do with EHL" is also answered... As title says, "how many or how much - for money", related to "countability", also according to "linguists". So, before attacking my claim, please, prove "uncountability of money."


----------



## berndf

There is nothing to be proven. Countability is a property of a concrete concept expressed by a concrete word in a concrete language. In English, _money_ exists as a countable and as a non-countable word. _Money_ in non-countable in sentences like
(1)_ He had a lot of money._
(2) _There was no money on his account._

It is countable in sentences like
(3)_ The monies raised during the campaign have all been transferred to our CS account._
(4)_ He kept his fortune in different monies._

The linguistic concept of countability has nothing to do divisibility and has nothing to do with the concept of countability in set theory. A word or, more precisely, a concept X is countable if meaning is attached to the expressions 1X, 2Xs, 3Xs, etc. If _money_ means a _quantity of money_ (as in 1 & 2) then it in non-countable because no natural unit of measurement is attached to the concept. If _money_ means _transaction amount_  (as in 3) or _type/kind of money _(as in 4) then meaning is attached to expressions _one money, two monies_ etc.

The basic principle of what constitutes a countable and what constitutes a non-countable word is fairly universal. But which concrete words are countable and which are non-countable is language specific. E.g. _information_ is always non-countable in English while the French word _information_ is in most cases countable  (with the meaning _piece of information_).


----------



## garipx

berndf,

When a person just learning English reads your examples (1, 2, 3, 4) may ask "if these told are true or not" (here, "truth" is understood mostly opposite of "lie" in languages, particularly in "spoken languages" and that person would go to the English lesson forum to learn if those (1, 2, 3, 4) are "really" said so or not.

Similarly, he would go to the English forum to learn how people whose native language is English say for "money", "much money" or "many money".

Such things are "information gathering" in "already available" things, but, unknown to a new learner.

Although I don't speak English well either I (and also everybody here) had already passed that stage, we all already know English people are using "much money", not "many money. If it was said it is "subjective", that's is a matter of personal/national/etc taste, it would be non-discussable. But, there is a generalization here, with respect to "countability". When it is narrowed to "money it becomes "uncountability of money is universal"... a generalization ...
(Btw, I'll keep using "uncountability" instead of "non-countability" whichever is said by English people is not our main topic here, I guess everybody understands "uncountability" as opposite of "countability.")

So, this "uncountability of money is universal" requires a proof, a proof even in only English. That should be done like a mathematican does to prove "2+2=4" which is well known. Saying that "countability in mathematics and in linguistics is different" does not make sense, at least in this topic in which the thing we are talking is "money" which is considered same thing for the both, for the mathematican and for the linguist, for all others as well.

What are the language and the mathematics? (related to countability). With simple examples.

1tulip + 1rose = 2flowers... Here, what takes my attention is "tulip and rose", their odor/smell/beauty/etc rather than their quantities/mathematics.

1tulip + 1tulip = 2tulips... Here, what takes my attention is numbers/figures as all units/names (tulip) are same.

1money + 1money = 2money/s... Here, my eyes are opened wider because it is about "money" and people immediately "jump" to the total "2moneys" as it is bigger number (economy motivation).
,
These are about "money" and "countability" with letters/notations/symbols, partically from linguistics and partially from mathematics.

How these letters/notations/symbols are related?
Right now, I just said somethings here in my room, you didn't hear. What did I say? Exactly what I said can never be known unless you hear with your own ears.
Still, I can try to tell what I said, from "beginning."

I said this: [ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~  ~~ ~~~~~ ] where "~~"s are voice/sound waves (this can not be heard through the internet.)
-> (transformation operation through an electrical/electronical tool) ->
I said this: {><><><>< ><> <> ><><} where "><"are "discretized waves" (ok, this sound record option does not exist here on WR forum.)
-> (transformation operation by hand fingers using linguistics symbols and notations) ->
I said this: [yesterday, I picked one apple from a tree. Today, I got one apple in the morning and one apple in the afternoon. So, I got three apples in total.] (now, you read and you know what I said with our communication tool here with linguistics symbols/etc.]

But, it is a too long sentence, and, some maybe interested in "picking", some maybe interested in "tree", some maybe interested in "who/when", etc., but, our topic here in this thread is not about these, so, some (mathematicans) may say "hey, garipx, lets write it shorter by using some other symbols/notations."

-> (a transformation operation of some linguistics symbols to mathematical symbols, for ex, "one to 1") ->

I said this: "1apple + (1apple+1apple) = (1+1+1)apples." - (See initially we know only "1" as it was in sentence above as "one")

Now, someone introduces some new symbols (by saying lets show 1+1 with a new symbol "2", etc:

I said this: "1apple + 2apples = 3apples"

Now, someone generalizes and omits "apples" as they are invariants/same:

I said this: "1 + 2 = 3"...

So, where the "countability" did start in this what I said? It started when the word "one" is used. Mathematics just used another symbol for it, as "1", so that a paragraph of letters/words/sentences/symbols can be shortened into a single line, usually called "equation". So, the linguistics and the mathematics are in the same group, according to the criteria "countability". A saying that "we linguists see countability differently than mathematicans or vice versa" doesn't make sense in this particular case, espeically when it is related to the "money" and its "un/countability".

Now.
Instead of saying "apple" in which "countability" is clear, what if I said "wheat"?...
(same question questioned for "money": "wheat too is un/countable" like it is said for "money" which is used to seen as "liquid", which is wrong according to the claim here.) This paragraph is the heart of this topic here as this new "money::wheat" analogy proposal can clean all errors in "money language".

Ps: btw, a math prof from a USA university, and also an "old" engineer still working at the industry, maybe viewing here as they were viewing a similar thread by "ErolGarip" on a non-commercial forum (a coin collector forum) where I put a link of this thread there in the public. If it's not a problem to put a link of that other thread here, I can do that too. However, that other thread on another forum is less academical than here.


----------



## garipx

Perhaps, before this new claim <"money::wheat" analogy is a proper/better analogy comparing with commonly used analogy "money::liquid">,
this must be repeated/emphasized:

IF "uncountability of money is universal" ... is valid, as universal as ... "2 + 2 = 4" , it should be proved.

I've seen many proofs of "2 + 2 = 4" using simple elementary school mathematics to using advanced level mathematics. At the end, it is doubtless.

But, I have never seen any proof about "uncountability of money is universal", even no any attempt by any experts in linguistics/mathematics/economy/etc.
So, there is a doubt in that commonly(?) accepted expression about money's uncountability.
When that doubt is questioned further it can be seen that it is not a pointless doubt.


----------



## berndf

garipx said:


> But, I have never seen any proof about "uncountability of money is universal"


Nobody said it was. Countability is always language dependent and many languages  (including English) allow context where the respective words for _money_ are countable. If a word X expresses a countable concept this means no more and no less than that the language assigns meaning to 1X and 2Xs. It is entirely specific to the language in question if this is the case or not.

That being said, most languages express the concept of money most of the time as non-countable.


----------



## garipx

berndf said:


> ... languages express the concept of money most of the time as non-countable.



Most of the time? So, there are "exceptions" which break the universal rule "money is non-countable" and some examples in your previous post: (lets take here)



berndf said:


> It is countable in sentences like
> (3)_ The monies raised during the campaign have all been transferred to our CS account._
> (4)_ He kept his fortune in different monies._



In (3): Instead of saying "The monies raised during...", if it is said "The money raised during ... ", then, it is wrong? If wrong, why? If not wrong, then, there is no difference between "money" and "monies"?

In (4): ok, I see, it is "monies" because there are different kinds/types of money. Different type/kind of "monies" you mean are probably, for ex, "dollar and euro" or "dollar or cent", etc. This is probably more clear to the public. Whether it is correct or not is another issue now, however, still informative about how "money" is seen over there by people whose native languages is English. Anyway, I "reserve" this different "kind/type" of money for conversation later. For the moment, questions on (3) are more important.


----------



## berndf

garipx said:


> In (3): Instead of saying "The monies raised during...", if it is said "The money raised during ... ", then, it is wrong? If wrong, why? If not wrong, then, there is no difference between "money" and "monies"?


Both are possible. There is a slight but noticable difference in meaning. _The money raised... _describes the total amount as a single quantity that was transferred to that account. _The monies raised... _ emphasises that there were several different payments received at different times and/or from different sources and that each of them have been transferred to that account.


----------



## garipx

berndf said:


> _The monies raised... _ emphasises that there were several different payments received at different times and/or from different sources...



So, what you said is somethings like this: "The money (received from different sources) raised..." - changed to - "The monies raised ..."

This is somethings like a modern "agglunitation" which shortens a longer expression by adding some suffixes at the end of words, in this case, plurality in source"s" is added to the end of "money" and changed it to "monies."

I tried, I forced myself, to understand why "The monies..." and reached at such a conclusion.

However, if it is not a grammatical error like in this: "That trader made much money" which is grammatically incorrect. But, "to make money" still entered into the modern English, a century ago or two, right?. (He is a trader, not someone working in a mint where money is made. However, we are "thoughtful" for ordinary folks or whoever started to use it and any wrong use in the language doesn't matter since it is about "money" which is important thing, we can forget/forgive any and all grammatical errors.)


In such expressions, "money" or "monies" are really meant "money"? or, somethings else?

In Turkish too, there are similar expressions, for ex, "gelsin paralar (plural)" instead of "gelsin para", similarly,  "para+lar" implies "different sources".

Maybe, adding plurality (suffices; -s/lar/etc) to "money" may not be "modern agglunitation". It may also be because of "confusion" about "money" and it is heard from their tongues of ordinary folks. Their such uses (money or monies) may not effect the life, but, in academic environments such as mathematics/economy/linguistics/etc, particularly in mathematics, how the term "money" is handled is important as their formulae has much influence on the life of people. For example, continuous interest rate calculation has so-called number "e" which is not a number actually and which indicates "uncountability of money" error in their calculations... So, before educating folks, academic community too should question their own view of "money" first.

By the way, "monies" fit my counter-claim "money is countable" (in the new proposed analogy, "money::wheat" against "money::liquid").
But, if you don't (prefer to) see that wheat is made of grains/particles (countables), if you see "wheat" as a whole, for ex, as a bag/truck of wheat, then, you see it as a "mass" and you weigh it in "kg/ton" because "counting wheat one by one" is a "mess" for you, you can say "wheat is uncountable". Then, the rest is "easier work". Really!? It is the same reason, lazyness, in saying "money is uncountable." (Anyway, I also have a proposal against such a lazyness to make things "easier for minds", but, "harder for bodies". Later.)


----------



## garipx

I just finished reading many posts on many forums. Some of them are forums for teaching English to foreigners, some are forums for teaching English to their kids, some are economy forums, some are chat forums, etc. 

Some examples on how they answer "money is countable or uncountable" are: 

Some answer (especially on educational English forums) "We don't say 1money, 2moneys, etc., therefore, money is uncountable."
I pass such explanations.

Some answer "We don't say moneys or monies, therefore, money is not countable."
I also pass such explanations.

Most answer "Money, like water/sugar/furniture/etc, is an uncountable noun." 
Most common answers are like this. Answers here too were same or similar, explanations by analogies. 

Some other answer "monies/moneys is sometimes/rarely used and it is in modern English as "sum of money" and in economy context by economists for different types/kinds of currencies such as Dollar, Euro, etc.

A very few people answer "monies were frequently used in old days in the history when people were mostly poor, when they had little money."
Probably, she/he saw that word "monies" in some very old books/writings reprinted later. 

So, from language history point of view, the word "money" has changed from countable noun (from many monies) to uncountable noun (to much money). 

This is logical because there were not many kinds/types/denominations of money in ancient days. 
(To support this, in this thread on a coin collecting forum, "ancient" forms of money are also asked by "Garip"; Coin without any number/figure? | Page 6 | Coin Talk ) 

For example, oldest known coin, Lydia coin with a lion figure on it dated around 700 BC, has no any numeral such as "5" or in word "five" or some other things to apart it from other coins. 

So, in early days of "money", there was only single coin type in a place and the original form of noun "money" was a countable noun, highly likely. 
(how long in the past have linguists gone about the origin of word "money"? Around 300 BC, her time of Goddess Juno "Moneta" which is said to be origin of word "money". So, "the money" we use is not name of real money, it is just name/title of a goddess/queen, ok, that is another story.) 

What was the real money in early days of money? It was a coin only, a single type of coin. Its meaning of "money" has changed in time? Maybe, but, it is still a concrete item. Think about "1cent" coin. (or, its equivalents such as 1penny, 1agora, 1kurus, 1yen, 1kapik, etc.) which I can name "1coin" or even "1money"
It is the only real money. All other forms (5cents, 25cents, 1dollar=100cents, 5dollars=500cents, etc) are "variable" various forms of money while 1cent=1coin=1money is "constant" of money. (ok, I stop here, not to go off-topic, more on such things are posted in that forum thread with its link above.)

All these being said, conclusion is: 
the generalization "money is uncountable noun" by drawing analogies to liquid/water/etc is not valid and money can be countable. (yes, so, acc to analogy, "money::wheat" and mathematical model of money according to this analogy will change things.)


----------



## berndf

garipx said:


> So, from language history point of view, the word "money" has changed from countable noun (from many monies) to uncountable noun (to much money).


No. They have always been distinct uses.


garipx said:


> money is uncountable noun" by drawing analogies to liquid/water/etc is not valid and money can be countable.


Water can be countable the same way as money: (3) _The waters are streaming _and (4) _He tasted different waters_.


----------



## garipx

berndf said:


> No. They have always been distinct uses.



You are just saying without any proof, without any evidence. I am bringing some evidences. For example: 
 - Though a few, some people on some forums say that in old books, the word "monies" were used more than today. (probably, they were mentioning books of near past, a century ago or two.) 
- "Dymn" here mentioned about "diners" in Catalan, plural tantum. So, its original word was singular, countable name. Similarity to "denarius", a name of a denomination in Romance language, which is like "cent" of today tells there is a change in "money's countability."
- More back, early ancient money has only one form/type, that means it is not necessary to give sub-names in money, like {dollar, cent, etc} which are like {apple, orange, etc} which can have a group name "fruit". 



berndf said:


> Water can be countable the same way as money: (3) _The waters are streaming _and (4) _He tasted different waters_.



Yes, of course, water too can be countable if you mean by "water", for ex, "river". There are different rivers, hence, different waters. 
But, if you still insist on an analogy of "money" to "water" from countability point of view, I'd chose "rain droplets", maybe, even better than "wheat". 
How many rain droplets :: how many monies.


----------



## garipx

Ok, after some interruptions in the "flow" of this thread in which my all posts were related, but, somehow, seen unrelated by the boss here (MOD) and deleted, lets continue with what is said in last line of last post above.



garipx said:


> How many rain droplets :: how many monies.



Some linguists and also others may "correct" this analogy and can say this:
Correct analogy is :"money::rain", "cent::rain droplet"... that is,
{money, cent}::{rain, rain droplet} ... quite logical as the first element(s) is "uncountable noun(s)" and the second is "countable noun(s)"... defined so.

But, "rain" too can be in a countable set, depending on how you form a set.
Examples for countable sets:

microscopics water set={proton of water, neutron of water, etc}
rain set={rain droplets}
rain-like water set={rain droplet, vapor buble, snowflake, hail droplet, etc}
falling/raising waters kind set={rain, snow, hail, vapor, etc},
waters set={rain, river, lake, sea, a cup of water, etc},
organic materials set={water, air, tree, etc},
materials set={organic materials, metals, etc},
existing things on the earth set:{materials, non-materials/lights, etc},
planets set={earth, jupiter, etc},
galaxy set={earth, sun, etc},
universe set={this galaxy, that galaxy, etc}

... (see, sets in sets in sets in sets in... in which smallest set (smaller than atom-like particles and bigger set than the universe that we "know" are unknown... )

So, where is the "money" in these sets? Or, better to say, which set of these sets is the best set in making a best analogy to "money"? If we put it in "rain set", then, ok, we can say it in words: "money is like rain, rather than rain droplet" and this in words can be written with analogy notation "::" as
"money::rain" and "cent::raindroplet"...
But, this "chosing water set" as a more generalized set than "rain" set is only an "arbitrary" choice and mind confusing. If one choses, for example, "galaxy set", then, similary, we can say "money is like galaxy and cent is like earth" and in this case, we can show this said by using analogy notation "::" as
"money::galaxy" and "cent::earth"... (for someones like "green-man" in the space, from another galaxy and planet, who does not know what the water is, I could tell him the "money" by this way of analogy money::galaxy and cent::earth, following our main criteria the "un/countability" which results in "many money" or "much money" depending on the countability. So, which analogy ("money is like rain" or "money is like rain droplet") is better to understand each others, people of this planet?

And, another definition/term is used by people: "countable nouns" and "uncountable nouns"... There is no sense in these terms. "Counting" is an act, is a verb while "noun" is only a "label" like "apple". That's, what we are counting is NOT noun/label (apple), what we are counting by "counting apple" is apple itself, "physical apple". So, the expression  "countable or uncountable noun" is senseless, unless you "mean" by "noun" as "physical object." Therefore, we are using analogies by those physical objects to understand/learn what the money is. (green-men from another planets can laugh at us for not knowing our own product money. Not to hear their sarcasm, you can only hope them green-men don't exist...)

So, it is necessary to chose one of sets given above and the best set is:

{money, cent}::{rain, raindroplet}... you can see, the set "money" has only one set element (cent) and the set "rain" has only one element (raindroplet).

For "continuity of countability" in time and space, during operation, this analogy maybe better:

{money, cent}::{wheat, grain/particle}... (again, wheat set too has only one element in its set, wheat={grain}...)

----

PS: If you say "dollar" also exists in money set, that's, if you put them in money set, i.e. money={dollar, cent}, then, "elements" of this money set, i.e.
 "dollar" and "cent" must have no "countability" relation between each others, as "each element" in this set must be "independent" from each others. But, we know their relation: 1dollar=100cents. Therefore, writing this way, money:{dollar, cent} is WRONG... If we write it in this way money={100cent, cent}, you can see there is only one element "cent" in "money" set and also you see "countability" in "100" which is not necessary to write it in the set as we are talking about "countability". So, correct form of money set is money={cent only}. You can also say what about euro, etc. They are mathematically converted: for ex, 1euro=1,3dollar. It does not matter, money is still same set, a countable thing. With "euro", you are just counting less number of element in money set which has only one element, "cent". In their currency of Japan, it is more clear as they now have only one denomination name, "yen" (after cancelling "sen"), money={yen}.

Conclusion: Since "money" has only one element, "cent", in its set, money={cent}, which can also be written as "money=cent" and this can be expressed by language words as "money is cent" which is countable... Clear?


----------



## Treaty

garipx said:


> So, the expression "countable or uncountable noun" is senseless, unless you "mean" by "noun" as "physical object." Therefore, we are using analogies by those physical objects to understand/learn what the money is.


Of course this is obvious. The whole language is senseless if it didn't refer to actual (or imagination of actual) objects, events, feelings, etc. The dictionary definition of "noun" is _a word that *refers* to [something]._ You can only count a noun itself, if you count the number of times it is used in a passage or speech.

However, the conclusion you have made is not necessarily always true. Any noun or word (including "money") may have more than one meaning or usage that are the actual beings they refer to. The issue of countability depends not on the noun but on each of its usages. So, if you compare two nouns (not two meanings), you are comparing several meanings of one noun (e.g., "money") with several meanings of another (e.g., "water"). There is no reason that all usages of both nouns show the same pattern of countability of their meanings.

Of course, you correctly pointed out that we need to find the most proper comparable counterpart to "money" (in the a set format). But the problem with this is that we then need to explain why the counterpart noun/set is the best, which includes discussing every of their meanings regarding countability. If we are going to discuss that much, we can already discuss the countability of every meaning of money itself (as berndf concisely did in post #19). Why should we make it more complicated and doubled by involving another word?


----------



## garipx

Treaty said:


> Why should we make it more complicated and doubled by involving another word?



I'll start with your this line. You spoke... as if this "garipx" made it complicated...

IT is already complicated... Lets leave analogies (water, etc) aside as they are used to explain "money", for its "un/countability".
Meanings... of "money"... When the "money" is said what does any person in the World (say any person in USA) understand from "money"?
She/he understands from it, "dollar, quarter, dime, cent, etc." If she/he look broader, she/he also understands "dollar, euro, yen, lira, etc."
So, we have many different nouns here... and all these different "money names" are because of "meanings" they get, because of people whose views of "money" are different. Main reason for this is not because of countability or uncountability, it is because of "function" of "money which is "trade/exchange" with somethings else, for example, by giving apple and by taking money for some people, and by giving money and by taking orange for some others, etc. This is why people view "money" differently. It is another story, related to economy which is another stage of science. Lets not jump. We have not come to that point yet and economy, function of money, is not our topic here on a linguistics forum. We are at "nouns", not at "verbs" and at "sentences" yet. Still, the thing and its word "money" has not been studied yet. And, we are trying to do that here,

I guess this forum is rather an academical/educational/scientific forum, as it is (claimed to be) said that this forum is a "noncommercial" forum, so, the purpose here when we are talking about "money" is not "to make money" here, but, to study it from scientific point of view, including linguistics.

Various names in money such as (dollar, half, quarter, dime, nickel, cent) in USA is due to "trade/commerce" in which motivation is subjective/economical. These various names which can make one think as "money is already a complicated thing" can be simplified scientifically etc by seeing the relations between each others of them (1dollar=2halfs=4quarters=10dimes=20nickels=100cent) and all these can be simplified to (a number such as "100" and only one word "cent".) So, scientifically, money itself can be expressed simply by a pair of "number" and "cent", that's, money={number, cent}... Here, since "number" indicates "countability", as a noun set for money, without forgetting countability, simply, we have this: "money={cent}" ... since there is only one element in this set, it is equivalent to: "money=cent"... which is equivalent to in linguistics:... "money is cent"... (if cent is a countable noun, money too is a countable noun or maybe, it is better to say "counted noun", a "discrete counted whole noun" which is not equal to "integral/continuous counted noun" as we are using "discrete elements" when counting.) Here, we  are talking about "countability" as there are two different words "much" and "many" related to countability, and the expression "much/many money" is being questioned here. (I claimed/proved "much money" is WRONG, it should (have) be(en) "many money".) This is scientifically important. We have not come to "what the money is for" yet, here, we are at "what the money itself is". It's defined as "a countable noun" which is proved now it is a WRONG definition.

What we here in this thread is doing is not about how/why "money" are seen by people differently, its meaning changes from person to person is another topic, Still, I can tell a little about that too. With an abstract equation, for example, "Price" of "apple":

Price = F(actors) x M(oney) --- where F is some factors related to the economy which is not our topic here.

What people see differently is not actually about "money" (they even do not think about "money"). What people see differently is "F(actors)" in this abstract equation as it has various effects on the "Price". All studies including "money theories" I've seen are not really about "money", but, about "economy" which is simply that equation: Price=(economy) Factors x Money... Here, we are talking about "Money" itself only, questioning it. And, found out that "money is cent." Names here are subjective, different names in case of "money" doesn't matter scientifically. "Money is cent" can also be expressed as "geld ist cent" in German or as "para kurus'tur" in Turkish, etc... Scientifically, all these expressions are equivalent whether you name the thing <money> as "geld" or as "para" or as "money" or etc. Any and all of them are "countable."


----------



## garipx

Where might "how much money" have come from? (instead of "how many money")...

- It might have come from some "mathematicans" who "like" to study "continuity" (which is like "water/liquid" in the physics.) In their "continuity formulations", they use an ultimately small particle, "infinitesimaly" small. Whether such a small particle physically exists or not is unknown, it is a "mind" production, which can also be considered as  "imaginary" concept. When these "infinitesimally small particles" are added together, it is called "integrating", an operation for "continuous" medium such as water. (For not infinitesimall small particles such as apple, "adding together" operation is a "summation" operation, is discrete summation.) Integrating (I) and discrete summation (D) are same operation, but, they differ with respect to "infinitesimally smallness"... So, for example, 1cent can be considered infinitesimally small amount of money? If you are poor with $100 only in your pocket ($1=100cents), you will probably not say "1cent is infinitesimally small." On the other hand, if you have, say, $1billion, you will probably say "1cent is infinitesimally small"... So, your money formulation will change from "discrete summation" (like summing apples) to "integral summation" (like summing water particles which are taken as imaginarily as infinitesimally small.) Although the calculated results by these two different summation operations may not be different in the case of money, since the underlying principles in these two methods are different (infinitesimally smallnes related to continuity and finite smallness is related to discretenes), resulting expression by these two methods will be different, as "much" or "many".) Since "much money" is being used now we can say mathematicans studying continuity have dominated in "money formulations" and "much money" entered into the language instead of "many money." This is an explanation why "money is uncountable" is said...

- It might have come from "uniqueness". Think about "Earth". Meaning of this word might be different in ancient days as discussed in "Etymology:Earth" thread. Perhaps, it meant "ground" before. But, today, in our era with more research on the space, when Earth is said people understand it as a "planet" where we are on. As far as we know till today, Earth is unique, that's, there is only one from this planet, no any other copies/duplications/reproductions/etc which is similar to Earth. Therefore, it is meaningless to count the Earth as it is only one piece and you will not even to think about the countability of Earth although you can count planets together with Earth if you ignore the life, etc on the planets. How similar is this to the money? Suppose/imagine when the money started first time in the history, it was only one "coin" in a small blacksmith kind workshop. This is probable/possible. Since it was only one, so unique, we can not talk about its countability. Maybe, that workshop sold that first coin that he might have made, for ex, as an ornament. In that case, since it was unique we can not talk about its countability. So, even if it was only one, "that one" was a WHOLE, a concept that we can use "uncountable" when defining it. This "whole" is like a "completed" product after "much work". So, initially, original saying might be somethings like that "much work coin/money". This expression, like often done, might have been  shortened in daily life speech throught the history and it has become "much money." (However, after that first coin was reproduced by a state of the old day in many pieces (but, only one type), probably, "many coins/moneys" expression were used and such terms like "many monies" exists more in old history books/writings. After more types/kinds of money (coin, paper and different denominations) were produced and mathematicans made more economy calculations, the term "money" was handled like a "continuum" medium as told in first paragraph above and it became again "much money".) So, that kind of uniqeness of first coin/money and its call as "much work coin/money" with omitted "work" can be another explanation why "money is uncountable" is said...

So, after all, when the day is over, things in the past day are countable, but, when you are in the day things are uncountable. It is like: when you are in a lake  water is uncountable. When you are in the lake you don't see rain droplets. Only when you go out of lake you can see lakes and raindroplets etc which are countables. Similarly, if you are IN between "money" as seen in your words such as "this is a small money for me, that is a big money for me, etc", money is uncountable for you. And, when you don't have a one 1cent in your pocket, you are IN "money", not OUT of money, therefore, you can not see its countability of money, like that you may not see rain droplets while you are in a lake... Another expression. When you are at Work, it is "too much" to be counted... When the work/day is over it is only another day past. Good night.


----------



## garipx

(Ok, this is last post here. unless some opposite. Long post. Conclusion is in the last lines.)

Another thing to see why "money" is countable...

Counting Numbers set: {1, 2, 3, ... , 9999999, ...., "infinite"}

"Infinite" here is "indefinite" which can be shown with any symbol, for ex "horizontal 8" as done in the mathematics or can just be kept as a word "infinite."

So, the mathematical symbol "horizontal 8" and the word "infinite" are equivalent in the sense that they both are "indefinite."

When it is said that "money is uncountable" it will mean that "money" is indefinite like "infinite."
When so, when we rewrite "counting numbers set" above in that way below, (lets say "equivalency" symbol here be "==" and unequivalency symbol be "=/=")

Money-Number Equivalency set: {Money=/=1 , Money =/=2 , Money =/=3, ..., Money=/=999999, ..., Money == Infinite}

That's, "money" is equivalent to "infinite" only, not to any others" (with indefiniteness-definiteness criteria.)

This looked probably strange to you, too. It is because of putting indefinite "infinite" into the counting number set as if it "infinite" is a number in the counting numbers set which are definite numbers. By doing so, that's, by claiming "infinite" as another number, mathematically, these operations below should be valid like it is valid for any number in that set.

1+2+3+ ... = any number
which can also be written as
1+(1+1)+(1+1+1)+ ... = any number
which can also be written as
1+1+1+1+1+1+ ... = any number

If we put "infinite" for "any number" here, then,
1+1+1+1+1+1+ ... = infinite
which can also be written as
summation of ("too many" 1) = infinite.
"Too many"? Exactly how many? Unknown. Indefinite.
There are these in mathematics:
1 times "infinite" = "infinite" (this is clear here)
2 times "infinite" = "infinite" (again same, no plurality. Now, not so clear...)
3 times "infinite" = "infinite" (again same...)
... (and so on) ...
infinite times "infinite" = "infinite" (again same)...

So, this is like writing for any "x":
1x = 2x = 3x = ... (see the weirdness here?...)
This can be written "only and only when x=infinite")

Can we write this for "money"? If it is "indefinite" like "infinite", yes, we can write also for "x=money" considering that "money" is only a name like any "x" as:
1money = 2money = 3money = ...

But, this expression was valid only for "infinite", so, we can conclude "money==infinite", that's, they are equivalent in "indefiniteness".
Since they are "indefinite" we can not say any "definite" thing about them.
But, we can still say this (according to this "money==infinite"):

 ... 1cent (as an example) is not money, but, infinite times of summation of 1cent is equal to Money ... (due to indefiniteness of money)

What do you understand from this?
You do not have "money" unless you have "infinite" cents...
Then, you can not count "money".
But, there is "infinite" in counting numbers set {1,2,3,...,"infinite"} which implies "counting numbers set is a mixture of definite numbers and an indefinite number"... And, that "indefinite so called number" which is "infinite" can be never "definite", its destiny is to stay as "indefinite"... Since it is "indefinite" we can never talk about its "countability", whether it is countable or uncountable, it will never be known.

So, similarly, since "money" too is "indefinite", talking about its "un/countability" is nonsense, as it will never be known...

With this definition "money is uncountable", we arrived at this conclusion...

I was told by "Treat" in a previous post that why I was complicating things unnecessarily?
As seen here, complication is already in this definition "money is uncountable" as "money is indefinite like infinite".
With such a definition, any study about "money" is an "endless" study like studying "infinite" due to its "indefiniteness".

What I am trying to do here is to take "money" from "indefiniteness" to "definiteness"...
And, this can be done only by disconnecting "money" from "infinite" which is infinite times summation of 1, that's about "total".
We should stop viewing money as when "Money is TOTAL only".
When you keep viewing "Money is Total only", with mathematical notation, "Money=Total" only, in this mathematical expression, for ex.

$5 + $10 = $15

you are viewing that $5 and $10 are not Money, but, $15 is Money only.
You see? When the word "money" is used you are taking its "big" quantity and you are viewing only "big" as "money" actually.
We can see this better in this summation (each $5, $10, etc are randomly chosen):

$5 + $10 + $75 + $500 + $1200 = $1790 Total...

You are probably looking at the result "Total" only if you are viewing "money" as "total" only, aren't you? Most people, perhaps, all do this, they look at the Total which is big money. Looking at more and more "big total", you may find yourself at "infinite" which is "indefinite" and that's why there is this definition, "money is uncountable", which is not logical... So, unless you also call each of {$5, $10, $75, $500, $1200} as "money", you may get lost yourself in "infinity" if you go in that direction. Instead, if you go in other direction from "big total" to "smaller and smaller", the last station is "1cent" which is "definite". Smaller than 1cent is not money. Also, there is another important property of "1cent", which is its "contancy". To tell this:

Instead of writing some money from smaller to big like this (where "<" shows small/big, for ex, "a<b" means "a is smaller than b")

1cent < 5cent < 10cent < 25cent < 50cent < 100cent (=$1) < 500cent (=$5) < etc ... (which is not wrong)

but, writing it in this way, by writing 1cent seperately from all others:

1cent --- 5cent < 10cent < 25cent < 50cent < 100cent (=$1) < 500cent (=$5) < etc ...

shows that "1cent" is "constant" ... while all others (whether they are coins or banknotes or other denominations, etc) are "variables". That's, for example, instead of 10cent, a new denomination, for ex, 12cent can be minted, depending on the economy. BUT, this can not be done for "1cent" because it is "constant", alternativeless... So, since the "money" too is alternativeless, it is equivalent to "1cent". Linguistically, according to countability&alternativeness:

... money = 1cent ... money is cent ...

(this is valid for equivalents of 1cent such as 1penny, 1yen, 1kurus, etc. For ex, linguistically, these too are true: "geld ist 1cent, "para 1kurus", "money is 1penny", etc.)


----------



## berndf

If you should once create your own Esperanto, you might design it according to such logic. Real languages work differently. I have already explained the logic of the English word _money_; and that is simply how it is.

Words like Italian _soldi_ or French _sous_ meaning _money_ follow a different logic. These are _collective plurals_ with the semantic of an non-countable singular. What all these words have in common is that they are non-countable because they are semantically not attached to a natural unit of measurement. And that is all that matters.


----------



## garipx

berndf said:


> I have already explained the logic of the English word _money_



How? This was your explanation?

"A word or, more precisely, a concept X is countable if meaning is attached to the expressions 1X, 2Xs, 3Xs, etc."... (If not, non-countable.)

You are putting the cart before horse.

If I correct, what you said is:

"IF a word or, more precisely, a concept X is countable, meaning is attached to the expressions 1X, 2Xs, 3Xs, etc."... (If non-countable, we can not write 1X, 2Xs, 3Xs  etc.)

This is not an explanation on why "money is non-countable".
So, "non-countability of money" is not proved, yet... (maybe, a mathematican or two can contribute too as "countability" is more about mathematics)

---

Differences between languages: (Google translations of "money" to some languages below. In French, it says "argent", you say "sous", but, ok, I'll take "sous".)

Lets use "Mon" in Esperanto, as a "new" generalized name of set with elements of all different "names" corresponding to "money" in English.

Mon = {money, sous, soldi, geld, para, raha, dinero, dinheiro, diners, okane, qian, dengi, chrimata, paisa, möngö, imali, etc...}

I don't know their each stories of these different names, I can think of some reasons for some of them, but, talking about each of them is not our topic here.
A reason I can think of is "locality", for example, money may mean apple for some who give apple and take money, and, money may mean orange for some who give money and take orange, or sometimes sharp suddenly changes might have happened like a queen/goddess Juno Moneta might have changed the name from "xyz" to "money."

So, maybe, because of their different views of local people or regional groups of people due to such different reasons, there are all these different words for "Mon". That's, as I shortly talked about these reasons before, most of them are "economical reasons" which make people's view of money differ.
It is so, because "money" also exists in "price". If we write an abstract Price formula, in this way:

Price(Total Money) = EconomyFactors(trade, power, politics, apple, orange, etc) x "Money".

When people are asked what is "money", they will tell its "function", "what it is for" rather than "money" itself which they do not think at all actually.
And, since their views (due to different economy factors) of people are different their views in "Price" which is "money", but, "total money" for a thing is different for them. Therefore, we can say that the money they are talking about is "Total Money" which is also "money", but, NOT the "Money" on right side of this abstract price/economy formulation. That "money" on the right side of equation is "money" itself, that's, "money" WITHOUT connecting it to economy...

So, back to the topic. Lets rewrite the "Mon" set here

Esperanto "Mon" = {money, sous, soldi, geld, para, raha, dinero, dinheiro, diners, okane, qian, dengi, chrimata, paisa, möngö, imali, etc...}

What is the common character of this set? In other words, what is invariant(s) in this set? This is our interest here.
As you, and many people (I've not heard anyone saying otherwise) have said this directly or indirectly:

... This set "Mon" is a set with elements which are uncountable, that's, uncountability is universal in this set "Mon"...

Prove is required for this claim... (even if it is commonly accepted... common acception too maybe wrong, who knows, we need to see.)

---

How to prove? One of ways is symbolic mathematics...

These notations&symbols (including linguistics such as letters, commas, etc) are kinds of "discrete" elements we are using to communicate here.
(even "infinitesimally" small imaginary particle which mathematicans use in continuum/analytical formulations are "discrete" even if it is very small like millimeters or nanometers, etc. Pure mathematicans can oppose this, but, it is a reality and this reality is proven by "chaos" appeared in their "deterministic" formulas which is called as "deterministic chaos". Anyway, it is not necessary to go into details of these, I just mentioned to say that our all tools we humans use/we made are "discrete tools." This "discreteness" is one of reasons we have faced with, for ex, so-called number "Pi" (3,14etc) when calculating area of a circle, because we are "transforming" continuity of a circle to our discrete world so that we can calculate its area of circle with an "approximation" with very roughly to very preciously like we do analytically (does not matter, still discrete result even if it is analytically precious), therefore, our all calculations are discrete, our numbers are discrete, our counting too is discrete. Our language words too are discrete. For example, in mathematics, we write "1x+2x=9", this is a symbolic mathematics. This is simple, we can solve "x" here easily (x=3). Much more complex symbolic calculations can be done by symbolic mathematical softwares available today. This symbolic calculations are closely related to (written) languages as seen in using letters or words such as x, y, a, b, xyz, etc.
SO, proof of "un/countability of money" too can be done by using symbolic mathematics...

For example, (as I little done in my previous post)

1x = 2x = 3x... = x

This can be written for an uncountable "x"... Really? It is another story. Since numbers attached to uncountable "x" does not matter, why not, it can be written. However, a better proposal than 1x=2x=3x...=x is necessary, WITHOUT forgetting that "our uncountability" here is restricted to "money" only as there is this claim "Mon is uncountable set and its uncountability is its invariance, so, it is universal-ity of this set "Mon" with elements such as "money, sous, diners, para, etc"...

Proof should follow like that:

What is "x" here?

Answer: x=0 (zero) or x=infinite. They can describe "Mon" according to "countability"?
(notice that in this "1x=2x=3x...=x", all counting numbers are not solutions of "x", only "0" and "infinite" are solutions. So, we can consider "Mon" is equivalent to either "zero" or "infinite" if it is uncountable... Note that you can read "infinite" only as a word, not as a number. What about "zero"? It is a number? Such questions and answers. Symbolic mathematics. If any answer can explain "Mon", we can say it is "uncountable", otherwise, "indefinite"? Money is "indefinite"?)


----------



## berndf

garipx said:


> This was your explanation?
> 
> "A word or, more precisely, a concept X is countable if meaning is attached to the expressions 1X, 2Xs, 3Xs, etc."... (If not, non-countable.)


Yes, this is the definition of countability.

The English language does not assign meaning to the expression _2 monies_ in uses 1) and 2) and therefore the concept expressed by the word is non-countable. This is a property of this word and the English language in autonomous defining it as such; more precisely in not defining meaning for the expression and not attaching an intrinsic unit of measure, which would make _2 monies_ meaningful.

That is the end of the story. Nothing more to be said.


----------



## garipx

berndf said:


> Yes, this is the definition of countability.



It is the definition of "English" countability? Or, universal definition of countability? (lets see your others words to answer this question) 



berndf said:


> The English language does not assign meaning to the expression _2 monies_ in uses 1) and 2) and therefore the concept expressed by the word is non-countable.



Lets remember here your previous post related to 1) and 2), an also 3) and 4): 



berndf said:


> In English, _money_ exists as a countable and as a non-countable word. _Money_ in non-countable in sentences like
> (1)_ He had a lot of money._
> (2) _There was no money on his account._
> 
> It is countable in sentences like
> (3)_ The monies raised during the campaign have all been transferred to our CS account._
> (4)_ He kept his fortune in different monies._



Here, 
in 1) and 2), it is "money" which are used most of the times... non-countable ... 
in 3), it is groups/sums (for ex, from different sources) of "money? or monies?"... countable ... 
in 4), it is kinds/types (for ex, sterling, dollar, euro, etc) of "money? or monies?" ... countable ... 

In your same post, you also said this: 


berndf said:


> The linguistic concept of countability has nothing to do divisibility and has nothing to do with the concept of countability in set theory



The linguistic concept of English language has nothing to do, OR, the linguistic concept in general has nothing to do... ? (set/divisibility/math should not be used to understand countability in the linguistics?) 

Your say in the same post may answer it: 



berndf said:


> The basic principle of what constitutes a countable and what constitutes a non-countable word is fairly universal. But which concrete words are countable and which are non-countable is language specific. E.g. _information_ is always non-countable in English while the French word _information_ is in most cases countable (with the meaning _piece of information_).



Lets not talk about other things, "information, advice, etc" can be subjective, therefore, can be viewed differently, hence, their countaibility/non-countability may change from language to language. We are talking about "money and its non/countability only"... Since you say "Basic principle of "countability/noncountability is fairly universal"... When we attach the countability to the "money" the main question is: 

 ... non-countability of money is fairly universal or it is specific to English? ... 

Your examples 1) and 2) tell about "English domain". In this domain, "money is non-countable". 
Your example 3) tells that there are sub-domains in "English domain" where "money can be countable." 
Your example 4) tells that there are other domains out of "English domain", is a "World-lish domain" where "money is countable." 

Pardon, where is the "universality" of "money's non-countability" here? 
You mean it is "locally universal"?...  Example 3) breaks this "locally universality" too. 
Even if usually said as in 1) and 2), there are counter-examples 3) and 4) which breaks generalization "non-countability of money" as to "universal". 

Sorry, but, what I see from these examples which are used in English is that there is a confusion/contradiction in English (view of people of money) and this contradiction is reflected/seen in the language English (also.) 

So, their attemp of people to explain "money is noncountable" by using such analogies like "water::money" to make their views (confused views) of "money" as a a "universal" view DID fail as seen here... To make that failure to be clearly seen, "money::rain droplets" analogy which can tell that "rain water is countable unlike, for ex, lake water."


----------



## Treaty

garipx said:


> Lets not talk about other things,


I wish you apply this logic to yourself, first. Let's not talk about the following either:


garipx said:


> "rain"...waters set...galaxy set... "apple"..."wheat"...


Then you repeatedly have this misunderstanding of what berndf said about "universal" in post #19:
_The *basic principle* of *what* constitutes a countable and *what *constitutes a non-countable word is fairly universal._​
If you notice, there is no mention of "money". The universality applies to *the principle* not to a word. Nowhere in this thread, anyone said that "money" is universally (un)countable. This is something which yourself has made up and wasted your time refuting. It is as if you are debating with some imaginary members (e.g., who is referred to by "their" in the last sentence of you last post?).

As mentioned before, the (un)countability doesn't refer to the word _per se_, but also to its semantics (meaning, usage. context). The universal principle, plain and obvious, is that the word W, with meaning M, in language L*, is called "countable" if you count it. The same word W, but with another meaning M', is called "uncountable" if you don't count it. There is no contradiction or confusion here.

* we can go narrower from Language L to dialect D to speaker group G or register R (e.g., in the dialect of people in Randomtown, "money" is uncountable even if it means "currency"). The principle won't change.


----------



## garipx

This is an email from a professor in mathematics who started to read this thread:

-------

Erol, (that is my name)

I have never heard the “how much” verses “how many” distinction before, it is not a standard way of differentiating the two.

Typically countable, which can be infinite, means it can be counted (matched up to correspond to the natural numbers). Uncountable would involve what cannot be matched up to the natural numbers. All integers are countable, but all the numbers between 0 and 1 are uncountable.

In Statistics we deal with the topics of discrete and continuous which all seem to relate to your question. Discrete means the data is countable while continuous means that the data is uncountable. All currency would be considered countable. In the U.S. while we have dollars, every amount can be counted in terms of cents. While other variables, like a person’s weight at a given instance, is continuous. We record weight as a discrete value, say 183 pounds, but a more precise measurement would give a more precise answer. We could measure weight to a tenth of a pound, a hundredth of a pound, or a thousandth of a pound which would give a more precise answer. But with currency, once we reach the smallest denomination used for that type of currency, more precise measurements do not produce a more precise number.

xxxx (his name closed)

--------

Although this email does not say anything about the word "money", still say some about the thing "money."

In his first paragraph, he says, in other words: "how much" vs "how many" comes after the distinction "countable" vs "uncountable".

His/mathematical definition of "countable" is related to "matching to the natural numbers" and it includes "infinite." "Uncountable" cannot be matched up to the natural numbers.

Last paragraph is more about dividing/undividing of things to be counted. Currency, dividable, and once its smallest denomation (cent) is reached, more precise measurements do not produce a more precise number (that means it is unnecessary to divide the currency further and that means that even if you divide the currency into the smaller than 1cent, the smaller than 1cent is no more money - words in this paranthesis is my comment based on his words.)

I think that he did not read this thread carefully (probably, he is busy) and didn't see the "money". Still, we can take his word "currency" as equivalent to "money" and his saying "currency is countable" is contrary to what "Treaty" said in his last line of his previous post, that's :



Treaty said:


> (...in the dialect of people in Randomtown, "money" is uncountable even if it means "currency"). The principle won't change.



So, lets use the word "currency" hereafter (for a while) instead of the word "money" as money is a broader term that maybe more mind confusing.

So, which is currect? ... "how much currency" or "how many currency" ...

I just checked on the net which of them are more commonly used... Their use (the word "currency") of People ("Treaty", I refer by "their" to "... of majority of people") is: ... "how much currency" ... (so, the word "currency" here is like "water" in "how much water"... or, using it in field "money", "currency means money".)

But, professor said: "currency is countable"...

So, how to distinct? Lets write again, side by side:

".... currency is countable...."   and  "....how much currency ...."

Principle that implies universality: ...for uncountables, "how much" is said... FAILED or NOT? (specifically, within this field "money/currency.")


----------



## berndf

garipx said:


> This is an email from a professor in mathematics who started to read this thread:


He explained to you what countable means in set theory: a non-empty set is countable if it is possible to to define a bijective mapping between this set and the set of the natural number or, in case of a finite set, between this set and a starting sequence of the set of natural numbers. Countable sets are, e.g., the set containing the elements {Hans, Otto, Emil}, the set of all integer numbers between -1000 and +1000, the set of all integer numbers, the set of all rational numbers (i.e. all numbers that can be represented of fractions, like 1/1 or 4/3 or 7/8). Countable sets of numbers may be discrete, e.g. the set of all integer number, or may be continuous, e.g. the set of all rational numbers.

All of this has nothing, absolutely nothing whatsoever, to do with the concept of a _countable noun_ in linguistics. The two sciences just happen to use the same English word for two different things.


garipx said:


> In his first paragraph, he says, in other words: "how much" vs "how many" distinction comes after the distinction "countable" vs "uncountable".


He tells you what we have told you as well: The mathematical concept of a countable set has nothing to do with _how much_ vs. _how many_. That is what linguist talk about about when they talk about _countable _and _non-countable nouns_. Completely different things.


----------



## garipx

berndf said:


> All of this has nothing, absolutely nothing whatsoever, to do with the concept of a _countable noun_ in linguistics. The two sciences just happen to use the same English word for two different things.



So, you as a linguist, what are you saying? In English, "currency" is uncountable or countable?

"Currency" in the mathematics and "currency" in the linguistics are two different things?
"Countability" in the mathematics and "countability" in the linguistics too are two different things?

If so, if they are different, a new word for each of them is needed to be derived, isn't it? (Well, this is already what has been happening throughout the history, because, for ex, each of us means by "this" *that*, etc.)


----------



## origumi

garipx said:


> "Currency" in the mathematics and "currency" in the linguistics are two different things?


Do you mean "currency" as an idea? Or "currency types" e.g. dollar and euro? Or "currency units" e.g. pound and penny? Seems that blurry terminology takes you to blurry conclusions.


----------



## garipx

origumi said:


> Do you mean "currency" as an idea? Or "currency types" e.g. dollar and euro? Or "currency units" e.g. pound and penny? Seems that blurry terminology takes you to blurry conclusions.



By saying "blurry terminology", at least, you admitted. You are a rare one among the majority who say "things are clear."

However, it is also clear that "currency" and coupled pairs such as "currency type" or "currency units" are not same things and I am already aware of this.
"Currency" itself, idea/concept/word/thing/whatever, is like "money" or "money" itself, when the both are "un-coupled."
So, our issue here is "money", but, since it seems to be a broader term, lets stay at "currency", for the moment, not to go into more confusion.


----------



## berndf

garipx said:


> So, you as a linguist, what are you saying? In English, "currency" is uncountable or countable?


_Currency _is countable: USD is _one currency_, USD and GBP are _two currencies_, USD, GBP and EUR are _three currencies_.


garipx said:


> a new word for each of them is needed to be derived, isn't it?


It is quite normal that different sciences use the same word in different meanings when contexts are sufficiently different. Speaking of _countable *sets*_ and a _countable *nouns* _should be sufficient to differentiate the contexts.


----------



## garipx

berndf said:


> _Currency _is countable: USD is _one currency_, USD and GBP are _two currencies_, USD, GBP and EUR are _three currencies_.



Is this how the countability in the linguistics is? Can any operation between these counted currencies be done? For ex, a summation operation "+", okay, in a slightly different sense, can be done? As an example to this: 1apple+1orange=2fruits... A similar operation can be done for your countability like "1USD+1GBP=n.X"? where n=a number and X=a currency.



berndf said:


> It is quite normal that different sciences use the same word in different meanings when contexts are sufficiently different. Speaking of _countable *sets*_ and a _countable *nouns* is _sufficient to differentiate the contexts.



"countable sets" and "countable nouns" ... here, "sets" and "nouns" maybe different, but, there is same word "countable".. and it is questioned in the first paragraph.


----------



## berndf

garipx said:


> Is this how the countability in the linguistics is? Can any operation between these counted currencies be done? For ex, a summation operation "+", okay, in a slightly different sense, can be done? As an example to this: 1apple+1orange=2fruits... A similar operation can be done for your countability like "1USD+1GBP=n.X"? where n=a number and X=a currency?...


_Currency_ is an abstract noun. It does not define any "+"-operation and does not denote and quantities. The expression _the currency USD_ does not denote any amount of dollars, it refers to the currency system USD as a whole.

In your example with fruits, you have to distinguish between _concrete _and _abstract_ uses. You use the same word in both cases but they have different meaning.
1. Concrete: _I have two apples and three oranges, i.e. five fruits_.
2. Abstract: _Apples and Oranges are both fruits.
_
In 1. _apple, orange_ and _fruit _refer to concrete, physical objects. In 2. _apple, orange_ and _fruit _refer to the abstract concepts, i.e. to the _idea of an apple_, the _idea of an orange_ and the_ idea of a fruit_.


----------



## Treaty

garipx said:


> "countable sets" and "countable nouns" ... here, "sets" and "nouns" maybe different, but, there is same word "countable".. and it is questioned in the first paragraph.


It is common that the same word in different disciplines has different meanings. The proof is in the second line of that prof.'s email (see below). It is natural to say _2.5 hours_ ("hour" is countable) in a language. However you can't say that for a mathematical countable (because 2.5 is not a natural number). So, it would be nice if you stop using mathematical references altogether to avoid confusion.


garipx said:


> Typically countable, which can be infinite, means it can be counted (matched up to correspond to the *natural numbers*). Uncountable would involve what cannot be matched up to the *natural numbers*.


----------



## garipx

First, let me answer "Treaty" first as his example (2.5 hours) is simple to be answered.



Treaty said:


> It is natural to say _2.5 hours_ ("hour" is countable) in a language. However you can't say that for a mathematical countable (because 2.5 is not a natural number). So, it would be nice if you stop using mathematical references altogether to avoid confusion.



Its explanation can be done by "familiarity" in "units". Those who use "2.5 hours" use so not because of language difference, they do so because their more familiar unit is "hour", for ex, not minute... 2.5hours=2x60minutes+30minutes=150minutes (can also be expressed in seconds, 9000seconds. Etc.). As you see, in 150minutes, we reached another natural number. Such things can be done for all numbers (except irrational numbers such as pi=3,1415etc). Similarly, 2,5USD=250cents. So, here, as prof said, what is important is "cent" in their money, not USD as unit. Although USD is more used, economy reality, "cent" is more important in scientifical reality. So, without using mathematical references, such things can't be explained... And, mathematical countability is as math prof said, related to the natural numbers. Here, I am trying to understand "linguistics countability" as it is claimed by "berndf" they are different...

Ok, I'll pick "important" lines of "berndf" here:



berndf said:


> 1. Concrete: _I have two apples and three oranges, i.e. five fruits_.
> 2. Abstract: _Apples and Oranges are both fruits._



(+)



berndf said:


> _Currency_ is an abstract noun.



(+)



berndf said:


> _Currency _is countable: USD is _one currency_, USD and GBP are _two currencies_, USD, GBP and EUR are _three currencies_.



= integrity (exists?)

That's, is there any contradiction between descriptions/definitions of "berndf" or not? (since all these were said by same person, self-contradiction exists in "berndf"?)

To see if there is any contradiction or not, I still used a kind of operation notation "(+)" which is not a number summation operation notation, to check the integrity in those words...

(I'll check it later. I need to go out.)

PS: In the mean time, you can change the word "currency" to "money" in those words of "berndf" and read them again. (ok, have a good day.)


----------



## berndf

garipx said:


> That's, is there any contradiction between descriptions/definitions of "berndf" or not? (since all these were said by same person, self-contradiction exists in "berndf"?)


Abstracts nouns can be countable. That is no contradiction: One ideas and another ideas are two ideas. Countability has nothing to do with physical quantities. The only thing it means is that meaning is defined for the expression 2 Xs.


Treaty said:


> However you can't say that for a mathematical countable (because 2.5 is not a natural number).


Careful there. 2.5 is a rational number (can be represented as 5/2). The set of rational numbers is also countable although it is not discrete (i.e. between any two rational numbers _a_ and _b_ with _b > a_ there is always another rational number c with _b > c > a_) -- but this set of numbers is still countable. Countability in set theory really is a very special term that is not easily accessible to a non-mathematician and even mathematicians cannot seriously claim to be able to visualise what _non-countable_ means. Very loosely speaking this means that infinity comes in different "sizes". There are sets that are "more" infinite than others. But that is completely beyond any human intuition. In number space, you have natural numbers, then the next bigger set is integer numbers (including negatives), then there are rational numbers (everything that can be represented as a fraction, that includes all integer numbers and things like 2.5), then there are arithmetic numbers (everything that solves a polynomial equation; that is all rational number plus numbers like sqrt(2)) and finally there are real numbers (all limits of Cauchy sequences; that is all arithmetic number plus all the "strange" numbers like _pi_ or _e_).

The funny thing is that natural numbers, integer numbers, rational numbers and arithmetic numbers are all countable, i.e. they all are the same "size" of infinity. Only when you include the "strange" numbers like _pi _or _e_, the set of numbers becomes non-countable. I.e. there are "more infinite" "strange" numbers than "ordinary" ones.


----------



## garipx

berndf said:


> Abstracts nouns can be countable. That is no contradiction: One ideas and another ideas are two ideas. Countability has nothing to do with physical quantities. The only thing it means is that meaning is defined for the expression 2 Xs.



I understand what you meant by "abstract noun." You are not counting "apples" physically, you are counting its name/noun "apple" without thinking its physics.
A more clear example about what you mean is "love", only a concept, with no any physical body (though some biologists/physicists may not completely agree in this, by claiming there are small particles/cells/whatever that are related to the "love", our common understanding in "love" is not a material thing whether it is true or not, so, "love" fits better in your "abstract noun" as "love" has no physical body, unlike "apple" which is not so easy for anyone to isolate its label "apple" from physical "apple".) Having said these, what you are doing by "linguistics counting" is nothing else than "counting nouns". So, question is:

How many "nouns" are there in English and in all languages?
Since there are probably many things undiscovered yet, there will be more nouns when they are discovered and again, another question is how many nouns will there be, for ex, till next year?

No, of course, you should not answer these questions. But, even if they are "abstract nouns", you will need a set of numbers such as {1,2,3,...} so that you can answer (by mapping your set of abstract nouns to that number set) such a question "how many nouns"... Without having a number set (with its minimum "1" or in word "one"), you can not count anything whether "abstract noun" has also a physical body like "apple" or has no physical body like "love". (While we are at "love", let me say also this. If you are IN love, it is uncountable. If you are OUT of love, for ex, it can be countable and by looking at other people in love, you can say "this love (of this person)", "that love (of that person)" by pointing them by using your fingers which are one of basic things used in counting.

So, without knowing how many nouns there are and without knowing how many numbers we need, to be able to count, we need both sets:

nouns:{ ... } and numbers:{1/one,...}

Fill ... with all nouns available in all languages and with all numbers available and map them.
No, this is not our topic here because talking such will be like talking about "infinity" where we may get lost.
No, don't fill ... also with nouns in English. Again, it may go to talking about "infinity".
Yes, lets take only nouns related to "money" which is our topic here and "money" is a more familiar thing to everybody from kids to olds who do "counting" everyday.

Lets start with the "money noun" set: (as I wrote before. I used their general name as "Mon" in Esperanto)

Mon = {money, sous, soldi, geld, para, raha, dinero, dinheiro, diners, okane, qian, dengi, chrimata, paisa, möngö, imali, etc...}

How many names/nouns are there in this set? We need to use this set: {1/one} and this set numbers: {1/one, 2/two, 3/three,...,infinite} (see there is operation "+" in this counting numbers set elements, eg, 2=1+1.
Anyway, lets say we finished counting these nouns/names in "Mon" set and lets say the result is, "213", that is a finite number...
Okay? Set "Mon" is already counted or not?
Probably, it is not clear. So, lets narrow our set from "Mon" to "Currency" as abstract nouns again.

We have this set:

Currency set: {usd, gbp, euro, lira, yen, etc... }
How many currency nouns are there in this set? Probably some people know it already, I don't know, blowing again, lets say it is "195"..
So, "currency set" is counted? Yes, and this answer fits what is said here, that's, "currency is countable"...
.... why didn't you say this same thing for "Mon" set... in which "money" as a noun element too exists... ?

That's, saying "MONEY is UNCOUNTABLE" and "CURRENCY is COUNTABLE" is a CONTRADICTION...

WHY NARROWING our topic here TO "MONEY"? IT is more clear now with NARROWING to CURRENCY.
This "currency" noun set with "nouns" elements again DIFFER from all other "noun" sets BECAUSE there is some "calculatable" relations between its elements, eg. there is a convertibility ratio between usd and gbp and others. (To my claim, some other "more complex calculatable" relations exist between "money and "sous" and all others, but, it is not so easy to see it now.)

LETS NARROW FURTHER to Currency in USA: (to see relations between elements in their money set)

USA Currency nouns:{dollar, half, quarter, dime, nickel, cent} (they have these nouns/names)
How many nouns are there in this set? I can count easily, "6". Counted? Yes, so, it is countable and this is clear.

BUT, now, I'll do a series of operations (because I know relations between these noun elements, such as 1dollar=2half...=20nickels=100cents)
Then, our new set becomes:

USA Currency nouns: {100cent, 50cent, 25cent, 10cent, 5cent, 1cent}
Now, lets count again, how many "nouns" in this set? Still 6? NO... It is ONLY 1, in words, ONE... What else left in the set? Numbers... And, those numbers too are all related to each others, eg, 5=1+1+1+1+1... So, what do we have now in this set? We have this:

USA Currency set: {cent, 1/one, +}

where "+" is a clear number summation operation notation, which is a function/verb/"work"... and "1/one" (whether you call it a word or number) and "cent" a clear noun... So, if "currency" is an abstract noun, it corresponds ONLY to "cent" or "one cent"...
Linguistically... "currency is one cent " ... without forgetting "one" that is about countability, it can also be written as:

CURRENCY is CENT...

Lets go backward. What was the "currency" in another word? It was "money"...

So, "MONEY is CURRENCY is CENT"...  (This is "local universality" in "any currency/money".)

(We can go wider, to "Currencies" set, and wider to "Mon" set, but, "relations between elements" of those sets are more complicated than "pure mathematical" relationship between elements of a "certain" currency. First, we need to reach an agreement in this "local universality" first, that is, "currency=cent", eg, in USA.)


----------



## berndf

garipx said:


> I understand


Sorry to be so blunt but you clearly don't. Please try to understand what has been explained to you. This is going nowhere.


----------



## garipx

berndf said:


> Sorry to be so blunt but you clearly don't. Please try to understand what has been explained to you. This is going nowhere.



You repeatedly said that "currency" is "abstract noun"... Did I oppose that? No. WHAT about "cent"? Is it too "abstract noun" or  not?

Even if "currency" is abstract noun, I DID some symbolic works to define it (better than saying only "abstract noun")

Lets write its summary here: (again, for ex, for currency in USA)

USA Currency:{dollar, half, quarter, dime, nickel, cent}... in which each elements are "abstract nouns"

but, there are relations between these "abstract nouns" (eg, 1dollar=2half=...=100cents), then

USA Currency:{100cent, 50cent, 25cent, 10cent, 5cent, 1cent}

Note that I did NOT do any extra operation between elements actually, I just added a known relation between those nouns (dollar, quarter, etc.)
Doing that means "nouns" MAY have some relations between them (in money/currency case, it is a mathematical countability relation. It could be some other relations as well, but, they are not our topic here as we are questioning "money/currency" here.)

This set can be simplified further by adding known relation between numbers (eg, 5=1+1+1+1+1, etc), then, we obtain (by writing "invariants")

 ...  USA Currency:{cent, 1, +} ... in other words, in words----> USA Currency:{cent, one, summation} .....

This means that to define the USA Currency which is an "abstract noun", we need these "cent", "one", and "summation".
Ok, we do not have to do any summation and we can delete it by taking it is "equivalent" to "0" (zero). Then, it means "static" definition of the USA currency:

... USA Currency:{cent, one} ... (here, we have two words, one of them which is "one" is related to the countability and it also fits what you said "currency is countable". We can take "one" out of the set if you don't forget that you said (currency is countable) that I agree. Then,

... USA Currency:{cent} ... (static definition, not dynamic definition as we omitted summation operation)

So, now, since "USA Currency" is abstract noun, "cent" too is an abstract noun, isn't it?
It is... if you take its "static" (not necessarily in time), in other word, "unique" of "cent" and we did this by omitting "+", that cancels 2, 3, etc...
So, "cent" too is an abstract noun... It is UNcountable, you can not count "cent" IF you do not have it or IF you do have only "one" which means "unique"...


----------



## berndf

This is going nowhere. Just stop, please.


----------



## garipx

berndf said:


> This is going nowhere. Just stop, please.



It has already reached a point...

These are what are said:

Money is UNcountable... "How MUCH money"

Currency is Countable... "How MUCH currency"

?


----------



## berndf

garipx said:


> Currency is Countable... "How MUCH currency"


You mean as in the sentence
_How much US currency is in circulation? _

In this use currency is indeed non-countable. This is a different meaning than in my first example. I didn't immediately think of this use. So, I have to modify my answer to your question if _currency _is countable or non-countable. The correct answer is:_ There are countable and non-countable meanings_.


----------



## garipx

berndf said:


> The correct answer is:_ There are countable and non-countable meanings_.



So, similarly, for the "money", the correct answer is: There are countable and non-countable meanings.

When searched (for ex, on Google) on the net, most of results: "How much money ..." and "How much currency..."
Relatively less number of results are "How many monies..." and "How many currencies..."
So, we can say that "most" of conversations/talks/etc are "local talks".

Since we are at "currency" now, just these two examples are enough for "currency/currencies":

1) How many "currencies" are there around the World? ...

2) How much (U.S.) "currency" is in circulation? ...

Ok, 
Answer to the question "What is/are currency/ies around the World" is: "Currencies" around the World are U.S. currency, Britain currency, EU currency, Japan currency, Russia currency, etc.

Question: What is/are, for ex., U.S. currency?


----------



## berndf

garipx said:


> So, similarly, for the "money", the correct answer is: There are countable and non-countable meanings.


Of course. We were at that point already 37 posts earlier, at #19.


----------



## garipx

berndf said:


> Of course. We were at that point already 37 posts earlier, at #19.



Your that post "#19" is already "pinned". Not forgetting it.

Ok, sorry for forgetting, my this question "What is/are, for ex, U.S. currency?" too was already answered, by you, as in :



berndf said:


> _Currency _is countable: USD is _one currency_, USD and GBP are _two currencies_, USD, GBP and EUR are _three currencies_.



So, U.S. Currency is USD, that's, in open form, US Dollar... (I also checked dictionaries/wikis/etc and also a part of his email of a math prof saying this



garipx said:


> (a part of his email of a math prof in USA) ... All currency would be considered countable. In the U.S., while we have dollars, ... (my note: read the rest) ...



So, for example, US "Currency" is US "Dollar", for example...

Ok, referencing the pinned post "#19" and another post about "abstract noun", "currency" here is "abstract noun", then, "Dollar" too is an "abstract noun" and "its countability of Dollar" in linguistics is NOT as the countability we know in mathematics. We can NOT count  "Dollar" in linguistics like we do in mathematics, according to what is said here... True?


----------



## berndf

garipx said:


> We can NOT count  "Dollar" in linguistics


Why not? Abstract nouns can be countable. In my example that you quoted:

USD is _one currency_, USD and GBP are _two currencies_, USD, GBP and EUR are _three currencies_.​_
Currency _is both abstract and countable.


----------



## garipx

berndf said:


> USD is _one currency_, USD and GBP are _two currencies_, USD, GBP and EUR are _three currencies_.



In this example, lets take only this part... "USD is one currency"... Here, did you count USD or not? (you DID count "currencies".)
You did NOT count USD itself, DID you? (If there is NO another currency in the U.S., then, it starts with "one" and stops at "one", as you did.)


----------



## berndf

garipx said:


> You did NOT count USD itself, DID you?


Indeed. _Currency_ is the countable noun here, _USD_ is the name of the one counted instance of _currency_.


----------



## garipx

"berndf", from your posts, I see that you are much more knowledgable in mathematics than many including me who is somewhat knowledgable in "mathematical physics" that can be read as "I know also how mathematicans and physicists view each others", sometimes, like enemies...

Also from your words such as "abstract nouns", linguists are closer to mathematicans as they also use "abstract" in their arguments against physicists.
In that sense, the difference between a mathematican's "abstractness" and a linguist's "abstractness is like writing "1" or "one", where the both can be considered as "abstract" just with different notations... I can express a line of a mathematical physics formula in words also, but, it may take a page of text.
Countability in mathematics and linguists are not different actually, as you may know if you think more basically. However, the countability  may be different in physics, but, it is another story now, we have not come to that point yet. First, mathematics and linguistics need to agree, specifically, about the money/currency/countability. Having said these, lets go on...



berndf said:


> Indeed. _Currency_ is the countable noun here, _USD_ is the name of the one counted instance of _currency_.



So, if I also write it this way, "USD is countable noun", it is not incorrect, is it?

(ps: I need to go out now. later.)


----------



## berndf

garipx said:


> So, if I also write it this way, "USD is countable noun", it is not incorrect, is it?


In the context of that example, _USD _serves as a proper name of an instance of a _currency_. I am not sure the category_ countable/non-countable_ applies to proper names at all.


----------



## eamp

How about just calling them 'mass nouns' (see Wikipedia article), which refers to the same concept as 'uncountable nouns' but doesn't use the word with which you seem to have so much trouble? Or will you then start insisting those words ought to have actual physical mass with gravity and inertia?


----------



## Hulalessar

It is unhelpful to bring mathematics or logic into any discussion of grammar.


----------



## berndf

Hulalessar said:


> It is unhelpful to bring mathematics or logic into any discussion of grammar.


Not always. But in this case yes. The mayor mistake here was that he brought in the wrong piece of math (because of the coincidental match of words). If we wanted to describe the linguistic notion of _countabilitly _in mathematical concepts, he should have been talking in terms of things things like _ordering relations_ and _metrics_. But I agree, there is no need for it.


----------



## garipx

In the witness of the public here, that may also include some people who may be a graduate of elementary school only and who may be just surfing on the net and reading this here, I ask you members of this forum here on their behalf of those people also:

Linguists (also mathematicans as their fields are closer to linguistics like using "one" or "1"), how do you count these below in practice (not necessarily you have to have them)?

How do you count "currencies"? Do you do Like that?: USD is one currency, USD and GBP are two  currencies, USD and GNP and EUR are three currencies, etc...? (I understood this already, ok, hope the public too understood.)

How do you count the currency USD?

1) Do you do Like you do above, you count it like that?: USD is one currency, USD and USD are two currencies, USD and USD and USD are three currencies, and so on...? (I know it didn't sound good, but, still... This way of counting too may be possible in the linguistics that we the public is not so good at...)

OR

2) Do you do Like that?: One USD, Two USD, Three USD, and so on... (including mathematical symbols, it can also be written as 1USD, 2USD, 3USD, and so on)...?

The public including this "garipx" awaiting a practical/simple answer from you.


----------



## Hulalessar

garipx

You are, I feel, trying to answer your question by applying reasoning which is not applicable. How you may count a particular thing is not really relevant to whether something is treated as a mass or non-count noun. If you have a plate of peas you can count them. However, in English _pea _is a count noun while in Russian it is not. _Gorokh _functions like the English words _rice _and _wheat. _In English, most grains are non-count nouns, but there is no consistency. Whilst you can have a crop of rice, wheat, barley and rye, you can only have a crop of oats. No amount of reasoning will explain why. The question becomes meaningless for languages which do not distinguish between singular and plural.


----------



## berndf

garipx said:


> 2) Do you do Like that?: One USD, Two USD, Three USD, and so on... (including mathematical symbols, it can also be written as 1USD, 2USD, 3USD, and so on)...?


If USD is used as an abstract noun then _one USD, two USD, ..._ is not defined and the noun is non-countable.
If USD is used as a non-abstract noun then USD refers to the main unit of the currency and _one USD, two USD, ..._ is defined and it is countable.


----------



## berndf

Hulalessar said:


> garipx
> 
> You are, I feel, trying to answer your question by applying reasoning which is not applicable. How you may count a particular thing is not really relevant to whether something is treated as a mass or non-count noun. If you have a plate of peas you can count them. However, in English _pea _is a count noun while in Russian it is not. _Gorokh _functions like the English words _rice _and _wheat. _In English, most grains are non-count nouns, but there is no consistency. Whilst you can have a crop of rice, wheat, barley and rye, you can only have a crop of oats. No amount of reasoning will explain why. The question becomes meaningless for languages which do not distinguish between singular and plural.


I think you can explain it and it has been explained but it didn't think in:
Countability is a property of a specific noun in a specific language in a specific context (or "meaning"). This is an autonomous definition that applies to the language and to the word and not to the "thing". And you can look this definition up in dictionaries.

The basic question to ask is: Does the language in the specific context define meaning for the expression _two Xs_? This is equivalent with asking: is an implicit unit of measure attached to to that nouns in that meaning?

Each language is free it doing this one way or another. Example (has been said before):
For the English sentence
*_He gave her two informations._​no meaning is defined and the sentence is wrong because there is no unit of measure is defined.
The very similar German sentence (each word is a direct cognate with the same basic meaning of the corresponding word in the English sentence)
_Er gab ihr zwei Informationen._​is meaningful and correct. German assigns a natural unit of measure to the noun _Information_, viz. _an item of information,_ i.e._ any part of the information she was given that is individually meaningful._


----------



## garipx

"Hulalessar", 

It seems you are late and you have not read previous posts, or, you have not read them carefully. But, anyway, it seems that "berndf" hasn't read them carefully, either. This topic is "only" about "countability of money", that's, the thing being counted here is "money", not anything else than this. Yes, "countability" may change in other things from country to country, from to city to city, even from village to village, from cultures to cultures, etc., and all these may appear in languages differently, hence, there maybe inconsistency about "countability" too depending on the things. To learn why so is their research jobs of linguists, historians, etc. For  the public to understand why in the world people might have been differently counting the same thing, one example will be enough for a possible reason. For example, in cold Norway, rice is not grown. If somehow some rice was grown, lets say they were only a few so that each grain of rice was counted one by one, then, people in Norway used "few" in their languages instead of "little" if they have two different words for countability in their languages. On the other hand, in China, rice has been grown much and instead of counting one by one like Norway people, Chinese have counted rice "mass" by "mass" that's equivalent to "much" in Englis. So, as seen in this example, rice is countable in Norway and uncountable in China. I am not saying these have really happened, but, a potential, a logical reason. So, such things in the languages are geographical, cultural, etc things and "countability" may change depending on the thing from place to place etc. Such things tell more about "things" being counted rather than "countability" as "things" are less abstract while "countability" is more abstract. 

So, then, you may ask why you are questioning "money and countability" as "money" too is a "thing"? 

"Money" differs from any other things (rice, water, etc) in that "countability" is the main property of "money" itself (not meaning "price" here which is also money as its unit of price is "money"...) 

Universality of "pure countability" is concrete as 2+2=4. (If you hate mathematics, you can also write it in linguistics, "two plus two is equal to four".) 
This is valid in any language, in any place, in any mathematics, in any physics, etc... 

So, in this topic, the talk is narrowed to "countability of money" as the both term "countability" and "money" are a "world-ly" universal even if their words/names are different. 

So, in this thread, started with questioning "money" (after some etymology, analogy, etc), the talk here have followed this road by narrowing further: 

Monies --> Money --> Currencies ---> Currency ---> USD (Now, we are at this point) ... 

(To the public, members and non-members, sorry for writing so long again, but, since there has been no clear practical simple answer to the question asked in the previous post because of "off-the topic" posts I needed to post such a post. I'll ask again, in other words, in next post. Simply again. This post is just for explanation what really being talked here.)


----------



## berndf

garipx said:


> This topic is "only" about "countability of money"


But this is not the issue why this thread is so long. The issue is that you either refuse or are unable to understand what _countable noun_ means.



garipx said:


> *"Money" differs from any other things* (rice, water, etc) in that "countability" is the main property of "money" itself (not meaning "price" here which is also money as its unit of price is "money"...)


The bottom line is: As soon as you start pondering about the _countablility _of *things*,  you are already completely and utterly on the wrong track. It is a property of *words* and *only of words*. I know too little about Turkish. Maybe the concept as we know it is alien to your language and that makes it difficult to understand. I don't know.

Put all your ideas on the side and start by rereading my #70.


garipx said:


> Monies --> Money --> Currencies ---> Currency ---> USD (Now, we are at this point) ...


No, we are not. Each word defines its countability status for itself. No other word has anything to do with it.


----------



## garipx

"berndf", having ready your post with optional/conditional answers like "IF... USD is abstract or non-abstract noun, this or  that...", I added these terms in CAPITAL letters in the previous post, below



garipx said:


> Linguists (also mathematicans as their fields are closer to linguistics like using "one" or "1"), how do you count these below in practice (not necessarily you have to have them)?
> 
> How do you count "currencies"? Do you do Like that?: USD is one currency, USD and GBP are two currencies, USD and GBP and EUR are three currencies, etc...? (I understood this already, ok, hope the public too understood.) --- ABSTRACT NOUNS here? (I thought so, following your previous posts, I counted SO. CORRECT?)...
> 
> How do you count the currency USD?
> 
> 1) Do you do Like you do above, you count it like that?: USD is one currency, USD and USD are two currencies, USD and USD and USD are three currencies, and so on...? (I know it didn't sound good, but, still... This way of counting too may be possible in the linguistics that we the public is not so good at...)
> --- USDs ABSTRACT NOUNS here too? (I thought so again, following your previous posts, I counted SO. I see from your reply this way of counting/writing is INCORRECT.. OK)...
> 
> OR
> 
> 2) Do you do Like that?: One USD, Two USD, Three USD, and so on... (including mathematical symbols, it can also be written as 1USD, 2USD, 3USD, and so on)...?
> --- USDs here are ABSTRACT NOUNS or NON-ABSRTACT NOUNS? (You considered they are NON-ABSTRACT NOUNS because I wrote in that form and you preferred to name USD as "unit" of the currency in this case. It is OK, no problem, whatever you call it. Lets go ahead?)



So, you confirm these? 
USD, in simplest form, can be called as "unit" of U.S. "currency" and your answer to the question: "Linguists, How do you count USD?" is:  one USD, two USD, three USD,...

OK? (If no any mistake here, we can go ahead...) Confirm please.


----------



## berndf

The word _USD_ has (at least) two distinct meanings:
1. The currency system called "USD"
2. A single (major) unit of this currency system.

Meaning 1. is not countable, meaning 2. is countable. If it is easier for you to understand, think of 1. and 2. as different words that only accidentally are spelled with the same sequence of letters. One of these two words is countable the other isn't.


----------



## garipx

berndf said:


> The word _USD_ has (at least) two distinct meanings:
> 1. The currency system called "USD"
> 2. A single (major) unit of this currency system.
> 
> Meaning 1. is not countable, meaning 2. is countable



To all members and non-members: I DO AGREE in all these that "berndf" said... EXCEPT one thing.

Before telling what it is, I'll bring what a math prof said here again (I had already posted his email in one of my previous posts):



garipx said:


> (this is a part in his email of the math prof in USA)... In the U.S. while we have dollars, every amount can be counted in terms of cents...



I also DO fully agree in this part of his email... (though I have some non-agreement with some of his other words in his email, but, this above is heart of this topic.)

What did he say here actually? NOW, the public too MAY object this, but, his these words MEAN that:

Mathematically, REAL UNIT of "Currency" in the U.S. is "CENT"... NOT USD...
"Cent" is the bottom point, the limit of Currency in the U.S.

Linguistics DOES NOT define what/which is the UNIT... Linguistics give the name LATER after the "unit" is chosen... IF you see so-called different "units" such as Dollar, they are just names given to "100cents" which is only a name of a certain summation of "units". They (dollar, euro, etc) are not real "unit"s. There is no such thing like "major unit" in any money in the World. U.S. currency like any currency has single "unit" and its name in the U.S. is "cent".

---

So, USD is countable? Yes. But, your counting "one USD by one USD" is actually counting "100cents by 100cents". 
The cent is counted "one by one" only. That's the most basic counting.
Now, since the "cent" is the unit, real unit, and since we reached at the bottom, now, futher questions can be asked. Such as what is cent, what is unit, cent is abstract noun or not, is it unique, etc. Such questions for "dollar, euro, etc" are meaningless as they all depend on their "unit"s...


----------



## berndf

You have a mistaken idea what _unit_ means. It does not mean that it the smallest quantity at which a something exists. It means that this is the quantity that is associated with the number 1. If, e.g., a price is quoted as $.99 than the unit is _Dollar_, if the price is quoted as 99c then the unit is _Cent_. Both are units of the currency _USD_. For the concept of a unit it is irrelevant if the unit is further divisible. It only means that the number 1 means _once the unit quantity_, 2 means _twice the unit quantity_ and 0.5 means _half the unit quantity_.

For what you have in mind there are other terms, like _granularity_ or _elementary unit_.


----------



## garipx

berndf said:


> If, e.g., a price is quoted as $.99 than the unit is _Dollar_, if the price is quoted as 99c then the unit is _Cent_. Both are units of the currency _USD_. For the concept of a unit it is irrelevant if the unit is further divisible.



Nope. In "$.99" or in "0.99 USD", number attached to the "unit" name should be "integer number" in case of money. "0,99 UnitName" can NEVER be written in the money. Therefore, USD is not the unit. When it is written in this form "99 cents", 99 integer number, and unit is cent. (You are confusing with other units such as in metric in which there is no "minimum" or "maximum", it may go to millimeter to macrometer to nanometer etc. In measurements, each case is taken seperately, for example, in an engineering drawing, all dimensions are chosen same, for ex, in "mm" and "unit" there means "mm" and still non-integer numbers can be seen like 0.9mm... In money, this can not be done, its minimum is "1" and "1" is not only "minimum" in money but also "1" is at all points. Yes, it is like "granularity" in which unit is "piece" unit which can not be divided further, otherwise, it becomes somethings else. This means "cent" is nondividable. If you see, for ex, 9,99cents, it is not real money, it is just a temporary/transient number during mathematical calculations. When it is rounded (in this ex, to 10cents), it becomes "money". So, money/currency unit always takes integer number.


----------



## garipx

Money unit set corresponds to counting number set, that's, integer numbers. They both abstract. 
That's, NO any other numbers other than these numbers {1,2,3,4,5,...,10,...,100,...,etc} can be attached to the "unit" of money/currency, that's "cent" in our example as US currency "unit". Such amounts "1/2 cent", "0.5 cent", etc are NOT valid in money case. If you see, for ex, "0.5 XYZ", in currency "XYZ", it means "XYZ" is NOT unit of money there. In Japan, it is more clear. After cancelling their "sen" (their corresponding unit to "cent"), they now have only "yen" and they do not have any price such as "9,99yen". If someones write such a price there, it is illogical. Such numbers like "9,9" can appear there too, but, only during mathematical calculations, at the end, it is rounded to nearest integer number, in this example, to 10yen, then, this is money.


----------



## berndf

garipx said:


> number attached to the "unit" name should be "integer number"


That is simply wrong. That is not what _unit_ means.

As words are mere conventions, you are free to change the meaning of words in your private language as you want. But you then risk of not understanding what other people say or write. When the word _unit_ is used to describe _countability_, it is meant exactly the way I described it, viz. defining the reference quantity associated with the number 1, independently of whether this quantity is atomic or divisible. This and only this definition of _unit of measure_ is relevant here.


----------



## Ihsiin

This is one of the most absurd threads I've deigned to purouse.
I'm surprised that it has been humoured for so long.
The salient points may be summarised thus:

1. The linguisic term 'countability' has nothing to do with maths and any allusions to maths are therefore red herrings and best ignored.
2. A word is considered 'coutable' if it can be meaningfully used in the plural.
3. In English there are many words which have both countable and non-countable varients, including 'money'.
4. In English 'how many' is used for countable words and 'how much' is used for uncountable words.

This answers every relevent question in this thread.


----------



## berndf

Ihsiin said:


> This answers every relevent question in this thread.


Thread closed.


----------

