singular debris?

[Pafra & Scott Catledge]

You missed the point entirely: I was contrasting the usage between a limited
count noun and a plural--not that I consider "debris" in its normal to be
either; it is clearly a mass noun.   In addition your point on "a lot of"
would be more easily made if you were to contrast "a lot of bacon was eaten"
with "a lot of eggs were eaten."  I was simply using the commenter's
example.  I spent enough time on this topic for my dissertation; therefore,
I shall adjourn for good.
----- Original Message -----
From: Arnold Zwicky <zwicky at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>
To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 1999 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: singular debris?


> >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)