singular debris?

[Laurence Horn]

At 4:29 PM -0700 7/21/99, Arnold Zwicky wrote:
>
>second, DEBRIS, unlike GUTS or LINGUISTICS, is not *formally* plural.
>it is spelled with an <S>, but has no /z/ (or /s/) in its
>pronunciation, which rhymes with the name DUPREE.  so i don't see how
>the word GUTS is relevant here.  [words that are formally plural but
>refer to stuff rather than things fall into two groups, one taking
>plural agreement (following the form), the other singular (following
>the meaning): KIM'S GUTS ARE/*IS TO BE ADMIRED; LINGUISTICS IS/*ARE
>FASCINATING. that is, GUTS is a plural count noun with mass semantics,
>while LINGUISTICS is a (singular) mass noun with plural form.  but
>DEBRIS isn't formally plural.]
>
Exactly.  And for the relevant speakers, we obtain this useful paradigm
(when not indicated, the judgments are mine):

KIM'S GUMPTION (MOXIE, CHEEK) IS TO BE ADMIRED.
KIM'S GUTS ARE/*IS TO BE ADMIRED                (as above; judgments AMZ's)
KIM'S BALLS ARE/*IS TO BE ADMIRED               (ambiguous)

THE GUMPTION (MOXIE, CHEEK) THAT KIM HAS IS IMPRESSIVE.
THE GUTS THAT KIM HAS {?ARE/??IS} IMPRESSIVE.
THE BALLS THAT KIM HAS {ARE/??IS} IMPRESSIVE.   (with different readings)

DO YOU REALIZE HOW MUCH GUMPTION (MOXIE, CHEEK) KIM HAS?
DO YOU REALIZE HOW MUCH/#MANY GUTS KIM HAS?
DO YOU REALIZE HOW MUCH/MANY BALLS KIM HAS?     (with different readings)


Larry