singular debris?

[Arnold Zwicky]

>From: Pafra & Scott Catledge <scplc at gs.verio.net> [re DEBRIS]

>That usage is more of a limited count noun than a plural.  I do not think
>that you would hear two debris anymore than you would two guts; you could
>hear "he's got lots of guts" as an alternative to "a lot of guts."

now i'm puzzled.  first, neither LOTS OF nor A LOT OF has an inherent
number value; either one can combine with
   a plural count noun, giving a plural np:
     LOTS OF BUSHES
                       WERE/*WAS OBSCURING OUR VIEW.
     A LOT OF BUSHES
   or a [singular] mass noun, giving a singular np:
     LOTS OF BRUSH/DEBRIS
                            WAS/*WERE OBSCURING OUR VIEW.
     A LOT OF BRUSH/DEBRIS
(the telling fact here is the verbal agreement.)
neither one can combine with a singular count noun:
     LOTS OF BUSH
                    *WAS OBSCURING OUR VIEW.
     A LOT OF BUSH

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.]

third, in any case, there are count/mass litmuses that do not
depend on countability (*TWO GUTS, *TWO BRUSH 'two bushes', *TWO
DEBRIS), in particular the impossibility of bare count-noun nps:
    WE SAW BRUSH/DEBRIS/*BUSH [plant, not politician] THERE.

so i can't see how DEBRIS could be any sort of count noun, even
a "limited" one.

arnold (zwicky at csli.stanford.edu)