I know that something so simple shouldn't be stumping me but the word caife has...

Because it stands for both coffee and café, I am not certain what I am seeing on An Foclóir Beag is for both meanings, or just café?

caife [ainmneach uatha]
caife [ginideach uatha]
caifí [ainmneach iolra]
caifí [ginideach iolra]

Is there a plural for coffee, or is this just for café?

They're just two meanings of the same word (much like English "tea", where the same word can refer to a beverage or a social occasion.) So yes, they'd have the same plural.

Hmm,

But Irish has no plural for coffee correct?

When it comes to coffee, don't you have to say something like a "cup of coffee" or "cups of coffee?"

One can't say "I want two coffees." Wouldn't one have to say, "I want two cups of coffee?"

But one could say, "The two cafés are blue."

It feels like caife = coffee would only have a nominative and genitive singular because you would give the plural to the vessel the coffee is being served in and then coffee in the genitive, or am I wrong here?

The nom. and gen. plurals feel like they would only be used for caife = cafe , café???

You might say 2 coffees when ordering for youraelf,and a friend, Also British people say they went for coffees

FGB: caife, m (gs, ~, pl. -fí) 1. Coffee. 2. Café (Var. caifé)

Actually, I have to wonder if "coffees" is OK in English also...LOL

I know I have heard it used, but I am not confident that's proper English either. I am however quite certain that my English teacher would have plenty to say to someone who does.

I have several dictionaries telling me all the same thing, but that still doesn't answer my question.

I just don't see using the "na caifí" or "na gcaifí" when talking about coffee. Would someone translate into a grammatically correct Irish sentence the following without using the noun + genitive form:

1) I would like two cups of coffee.

2) These two cups of coffee are black, and those three cups of coffee have milk in them.

And for the record, saying something like "Two coffees, please." is not correct. I know it is done, but there is no plural for "coffee" in the English language, and I am willing to wager that there isn't in Irish either.

If I remember correctly what our English teacher taught us, coffee is an example of a noun that can be used as a mass noun or it can be used as a count noun. There's more info on mass nouns at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun

Excerpt:

quote:

Many English count nouns can be used as mass nouns, and in these cases, they take on cumulative reference. For example, one may say that "there's apple in this sauce," and then apple has cumulative reference, and, hence, is used as a mass noun. Conversely, "fire" is generally a mass noun, but "a fire" refers to a discrete entity, and does not satisfy the criterion for cumulative reference. Two common situations of this process are when speaking of either servings/measurements of a substance ("Two waters please") or of several types/varieties ("waters of the world").[2] One may say that mass nouns that are used as count nouns are "countified" and that count ones that are used as mass nouns are "massified."

quote:

there is no plural for "coffee" in the English language, and I am willing to wager that there isn't in Irish either.

There is in Irish (see the entry from FGB posted above.)
As for English, I don't have a print dictionary here to cite, but look at Merriam-Webster online:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coffee

So then is this correct???

Ba mhaith liom ceithre chaifí?

The only time I have ever seen or heard coffee mentioned was in an example like:

Ba mhaith liom cupan caife?

quote:

I know I have heard it used, but I am not confident that's proper English either. I am however quite certain that my English teacher would have plenty to say to someone who does.

I have several dictionaries telling me all the same thing, but that still doesn't answer my question.

...

And for the record, saying something like "Two coffees, please." is not correct. I know it is done, but there is no plural for "coffee" in the English language, and I am willing to wager that there isn't in Irish either.

That's ridiculous. The study of language, and particularly grammar, is an attempt to understand how a language works. Sometimes it goes even further to try reverse-engineer the language to speculate on why things are the way they are. More audacious still, it will say what is "correct" and what is "not correct".

I'm a native speaker of English, born and bred. I, yes I, say "two coffees", as do the rest of the people here who are native speakers of English.

If your langauge teacher or you grammar book says that it's incorrect, then it's wrong. Grammar books might be great when you're in the early stages of learning a language... but progress a bit from there and you'll see that a lot of the theory -- yes, theory, because that's all it is -- breaks down.

If you really want to know if "two coffees" is correct, then observe a native speaker. There comes a point when you've to abandon the grammar books and just accept things for how they are because "that's just the way they are".

A grammar book might tell you the following is incorrect:
"I ain't got no money for you"

But find me a native speaker of English who doesn't know exactly what that sentence means. Sure, it might have two negatives in it, which would in theory cancel each other out, but they don't. Theory breaks down a lot in language. That sentence is as unambiguous as "I haven't got money for you" or "I don't have money for you". And it actually sounds more natural than the alternatives.

Ah, just say two cups of coffee next time :-).
Why bother arguing about English Grammar on an Irish forum?

I'm arguing generically about grammar, not about English in particular. Like for instance here's something I can't explain in Irish:

Deisigh é chomh maith agus is féidir leat.

(= Fix it as best you can)

I don't why it's "agus", but I accept that it is, and I use it myself. When I was learning the language, I came out with "chomh maith len is féidir" because I was so used to saying "chomh dubh le gual", but I was told that it's "agus is féidir". It wasn't explained to me. I was just told. And that's all there is to it.

LOL...

Tomás I am willing to bite ;-)

Give me one grammar reference where "coffees" is given as an acceptable option for the written English language? If I am wrong, then I say I am wrong. But I am willing to bet you won't find it in any English dictionary or grammar book. There is no English reference out there that is going to say that it is OK to write "coffees."

The problem I see is that you are mixing your apples and oranges. With all the examples you gave above, you are referring to spoken English verses written English. And there is a world of difference between the two.

If you, yes you ;-) say "two coffees" that is OK. I am not saying it is wrong or right. But it does go against the formal written English. And if one was to write this, it would be considered abnormal.

A great example of this is African American Vernacular English which is accepted at a living dialect of English. If I understand your logic, then a native speaker of AAVE would be giving you a perfectly acceptable (correct) sentence if they wrote this on a piece of paper:

"I a talked wif ma mouf." (I speak with my mouth.)

Now, one can say all they want about linguistic relativity, but there is not an English speaking institution in the world that is going to accept this as correct. They don't even allow this in the educational institutions that fall within the hearts of Ebonics speaking communities. Now the question is why?

What does this have to do with the Irish word "caife"

As I said before, it looks like the plurals could be referring to only the translation of "cafe." That is what I wanted to know. I understand that nouns can behave different in different languages...however; I have never seen any examples of "caifí" with coffee. I have only seen examples of noun(pl) + genitive...

quote:

Sometimes it goes even further to try reverse-engineer the language to speculate on why things are the way they are.

Conas deirtear "reverse engineer" i mBearla, le bhur dtoil?


FRCGRMA

Give me one grammar reference where "coffees" is given as an acceptable option for the written English language? If I am wrong, then I say I am wrong. But I am willing to bet you won't find it in any English dictionary or grammar book.

OED good enough for you, boyo?

coffee, n.

[...]

b. A light repast at which coffee is taken (cf. tea); or a final course at dinner consisting of coffee. Also, (a, the) coffee, a cupful of coffee.

[...]

1938 E. BOWEN Death of Heart III. vi. 431 Wait till the coffees come. 1959 Woman's Own 6 June 12/1 If you're not in a hurry will you let me buy you a coffee?

[Underlining mine.]

Rud eile de: ní chloisfidh tú leithéid "ceithre chaifí" in aon chor, mar is í an fhoirm uatha (singular) a úsáidtear le huimhreacha. Is rud é a bhaineann le gramadach na teanga seachas leis an ainmfhocal áirithe seo.

D'fhéadfá trácht ar "caifí cáiliúla Vín" mar shampla, díreach mar an gcéanna le "beoracha cáiliúla na Beilge" nó "seacláidí cáiliúla na hEilvéise."

Actually...no that doesn't count.

1938 E. BOWEN Death of Heart III. vi. 431 Wait till the coffees come. 1959 Woman's Own 6 June 12/1 If you're not in a hurry will you let me buy you a coffee?

This is referencing again an example of "coffees" being used in spoken English. This does not example any grammar reference where "coffees" is being exampled as proper formal written English. As I have said before, spoken and written are two different worlds.

Also the OED, and just about every other dictionary for that matter, normally list the plural form for words if there is one...

Try again ;-)

And GRMA Abigail, I do understand what you are saying. Just one of those things I guess that will boggle my mind.

(Message edited by do_chinniúint on July 15, 2008)

Spoken English versus "Proper formal written English"? You never said we were talking about "proper formal written English".

I don't like to debate unnatural things like that, sorry. What I will say though, is that if someone speaks with a polite tone, they can be as dialectal and colloquial as they want without coming across as unprofessional. Take for example if you're up in court for a traffic offence: If you're a nice old lady, you'll come across as a warmer person if you speak naturally. If you're a 21 year-old man like me though, then it's best to maticulously shape every sentence to the point of pedantry, you gotta say "upon my arrival" instead of "when I got there", and "the car in question" instead of "that car". Worked for me.

Other than being up in court, or writing a very cold document, I have no other use for "proper formal written English". I don't consider it a "language". Fair enough if there were a place in the world where the young people spoke it, then it would be a dialect, but other than that it's just unnatural.

Hmm, "Worked for me." I think there's a story there that needs to be told...LOL

The way I see it, you were correct when you said that we cannot accurately call someone's English correct or incorrect because there is really no established standard by which to compare and judge it.

However, in a way there is. English has in my thinking become the Latin of old. There is a formal written language that no one speaks, but could cause the English language to splinter off into several unique languages if it weren't present. It really is the glue that holds all English dialects together. And that is, at least in my opinion, a standard.

Sorry but the body of the definition makes it stultifyingly clear that coffee can be used to mean cupful of coffee and with the same syntax--namely, as a count-noun. Call this usage restricted to "spoken English" if you like; the OED doesn't. (Note the conspicuous absence of the label Colloq..)

So, Mo Chinniúint, if you don't accept the authority of the single most respected source of lexicographical information on the English language, then where do you go for description of this chimaera you call "proper formal written English"?

Domhnaillín, I must confess, I look forward to seeing your entries, I think we would make excellent debate team captains ;-)

However, you must forgive me if I do not see how "cupful of coffee" = "coffees."

That entry is referring to an event/activity rather than the substance of coffee itself.

We went to a coffee shortly after our meal.

They are referring to a social activity that was very common during the 19th century by the upper classes similar to that of "tea time" in England.

I am sorry, but coffee is a noncount noun. Not a count noun. It falls under two of the typical noncount noun categories, Liquids and Particles/Grains.

Secondly, the OED isn't saying "coffees" but rather giving a reference for where this occurrence has been noted. So to say that they are saying it, is a little misleading. I am not saying that I do not accept their authority, I am saying that I don't accept your interpretation of what they have provided.

Why can't the word coffee have a plural in Irish? Just because it is not grammatical in English doesn't mean that it is impossible in other languages... Logically you would say one coffee, two coffees, three coffees (if the noun is regular). In Polish the word for "door" only has a plural form, but it wouldn't make sense in English to say "I see a doors".

Ah, ach níl Gaeilgeoir an postóir bunaidh. Dá bhrí sin is i gcónaí a aistríonn sé an t-ábhar ó Ghaelainn go Béarla chomh luath agus is féidir.

Door is always plural in Polish? Hmm... is that in any way similar to "scissors" in English?

Hallo Dave,

Don't misunderstand what I was asking at first...the word caife in Irish has two very distinct meanings (coffee and cafe). When I saw that there were plural forms for the word, I was curious if these forms applied to both coffee and cafe, or just cafe.

I wasn't implying that they could not be used for coffee, rather I was saying that it doesn't seem like they would.

With every language there are different rules, there is no question about that. You are absolutely correct, in fact I run into this problem with German all the time.

But coffee is an interesting word because it was introduced to the language via English, and I would think that perhaps the English grammar might have had some form of influence on the usage of the language. Now I am very new to the language, or at least at a very beginning level of the language...but I have only encountered this word with a noun + genitive form, which is how English handles it also.

I want "six cups of coffee."

Would you like a "cup of coffee?"

I was never saying that "coffees" is not out there or OK to say. I was saying that this is only possible in spoken English because a sentence like "I want three coffees." is not grammatically correct in formal written English.

Where the confusion first happened is that I didn't do a very good job of pointing out that when I saying words like correct or proper English, I am referring to formal written English. This has defined rules.

Old High German turi (Mod. Germ. Tür) was originally a neuter plural but became reanalysed as a feminine singular (in a recapitulation of what is believed to be the origin of feminine nouns in Proto-Indo-European generally). The explanation I read for this was that early doors came in pairs, like French doors do today.

There is a certain similarity to scissors, which always consist of two separate blades held together.

Where the confusion first happened is that I didn't do a very good job of pointing out that when I saying words like correct or proper English, I am referring to formal written English. This has defined rules.

Defined where? You still haven't revealed your One True Source for "(proper) formal written English". The suspense is killing me!

My Webster's Nintb lists no plural for coffee or for apple either. It only gives plurals that are formed other than by adding "s".But I don't take it to mean there is no plural for apple.

I am talking about formal written English a.k.a Standard Written English a.k.a SWE....

If you accept the blurbage on Wiki:

"Formal written English is a version of the language that is used by educated English speakers around the world. It takes similar forms regardless of the local spoken dialect. In spoken English, there are a vast number of differences between dialects, accents, and varieties of slang. In contrast, local variations in the formal written version of the language are more limited.

While native speakers refer to American English, Australian English, British English or other varieties of English, and it is true that many regional differences between the forms of spoken English can be documented, the learner can easily fall into the trap of believing that these are different languages. They are instead mostly regional variations of the spoken language and such variations occur within these countries as well as between them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_written_English

Look it up, all you have to do is google "formal written English or standard written English." They are the same thing.

But if you are wondering which partcular books I go by, then you should have just asked:

Rules For Writers and Writing by Diana Hacker

An Introduction to Functional Grammar of the English Language by Halliday

The Oxford Companion to the English Language.

English as a Global Language. Cambridge by David crystal.

These are the ones that I found in my back room....except for the Oxford Companion, that one was at university. But they all say basically the same things regarding written English.

Oh God I'd hate to be influenced by those books. It's painful to read "proper formal" in any language, especially when people go out of their way to abide by the "rules", it comes out horribly unnatural. I hate reading standard Irish also.

My housing estate here in Dublin has a residents' association headed by a 60-or-so-year-old woman. Every now and again, we get a letter in the door from them. The English looks like it was written by a 5-year-old aspiring to be the Queen, expressions like "mowers of grass" used to refer to the people that cut the grass, which sounds horribly unnatural.

I think it's hilarious that people have so little confidence in their own grasp of their mother tongue that they have to take the advice of old pretentious pompous people with gout to see if it's OK to write something.

If I was teaching English, I'd tell them that the past tense of "should" is "shuda", and that from time to time they'll see or hear it as "should have". Similary with cuda and wuda. I'd also teach them about how English has two forms for the pronouns, the stressed form versus the unstressed, i.e. you versus ye, him versus um, which of course isn't acknowledged in the formal written language.

[i]Oh God I'd hate to be influenced by those books. It's painful to read "proper formal" in any language, especially when people go out of their way to abide by the "rules", it comes out horribly unnatural.[/i]

But the truth is, that the formal form of any language, be it English or Irish or anything, has to be used when dealing in a formal setting. Sure, there is the vernacular of any language, but if you were writing a letter to a business or an article for a paper, you wouldn't want to use the vernacular. You would actually get a lot of ridicule over the use of non formal language in a setting where it is expected and required so that all people from all regions can understand it.

Not to be harsh, Thomas, because I prefer to use both vernacular and standard formal. I just believe there is a time and a place for each and that both have their good qualities. One is more creative and "every-day" useful, while the other reaches more audiences because it is what is taught in schools and is more universally understandable to speakers of that language.

Just some food for thought. (PS: I majored in English, so I know how boring writing in formal can be).

Rules For Writers and Writing by Diana Hacker

An Introduction to Functional Grammar of the English Language by Halliday

The Oxford Companion to the English Language.

English as a Global Language. Cambridge by David crystal.

So which one of these says that "coffee" can't be used in the plural in Standard Written English?

quote:

Not to be harsh, Thomas, because I prefer to use both vernacular and standard formal.

Who's Thomas?

Who's Thomas?

"YER NAM IS JAMS O'DONNELL!"

*bualadh Tomáis le maide*

I'm surprised nobody picked up on this one. DC, you used the following example above:

"We went to a coffee shortly after our meal."

Therefore logically...

"We went to two coffees after our meal; one at our mother-in-law's house and the other at my coworker's."

I wonder if it's just a matter of time that all English speakers accept the fact that coffee can be both a mass noun and a count noun.

For example, take the noun "fire." I don't think one could find an English speaker who would deny that fire is both a mass noun and at times a count noun. I would venture to say that at one time, circa the caveman era, fire was just a mass noun. But then people started to see fire as a count noun, like "Og built himself a fire." Then it was just a matter of time that "Og built two fires, one for himself and one for his neighbor.

Wouldn't coffee fall into the same category? If not, perhaps it nigh time that we force ourselves to consider nouns to be only mass nouns or counting nouns. Then, we would have "Og built two collections of fire, one collection of fire for himself and one collection of fire for his neighbor."

A Dhomhnall,

No, that's just it. You can't do that because you are saying "coffee" but you are not meaning "coffee" as the liquid that is drunk. You are referring to an event by the name of "a coffee." And I don't know much about them apart from what I read in a book a long time ago. But I am pretty certain they never had more than one "coffee" at a time. I could be wrong there though.

That would be like the same person having an "after hours party" after an "after hours party." It could be done...but I don't know if it somthing that happens very often.

And of the ones that I have, I think I find myself using Rules for Writers and Writing the most when I have a grammar question. And before you jump the gun, no this author is the only person out there, but her book is in a pretty easy to follow format when I need to look something up. She isn't saying anything new or drastic, she just wrote another grammar reference that has the exact same information that all English grammar books have.

But if you are looking for exacts:

Page 230-231

"...Noncount nouns refer to entities or abstractions that cannot be counted: water, steel, air, furniture, patience, knowledge, coffee, sand, rice. It is important to remember that noncount nouns very from language to language."

"...If you want to express an amount for a noncount noun, you can use some, any, or more. However, it is important to remember that with some noncount nouns (see page 231 30D) the noun itself is uneffected and the marker or markers placed before the noncount noun must undergo a change to illustrate quantity such as: a cup or rice, three cups of rice..."

And Tomás...LOL...weren't you the one just saying that there is no right or wrong in a language, especially if it invovles the usage by a native speaker? If Tomás is Thomas in another language, shouldn't we just accept that a native speaker of English is speaking as they naturally do and should accept that "that's just the way it is?" LOL ;-)

And student...you are correct. In truth, I never expected this thread to take this road it has. I was just curious if the break down was for both coffee and cafe. However, you do bring up a great point, one that I believe Tomás hinted at earlier also, that English speakers like to ignore rules when speaking and treat words however they are going to treat them so accept it. I will not debate this simple truth, however, I fill that it is also the job of every English speaker to at least try and keep things within reason. There is a fine line between art and crap...and it is the same with languages.



(Message edited by do_chinniúint on July 16, 2008)

You are referring to an event by the name of "a coffee."

Precisely. And if there are two of them, how do you express the plural other than "coffees"? Or have you discovered a failing of the English language in that there is no plural for this noun? :)

Then, we would have "Og built two collections of fire, one collection of fire for himself and one collection of fire for his neighbor."

I'm sorry, Student of Dual Purpose Nouns, but this isn't nearly complicated enough. How do you know it's a "collection" of fires?

I mean, who knows, maybe the proper English terminology is a "scorching" of fires, as in a "pride of lions, a "murder" of ravens, a "crash" of rhinoceroses (or is it rhonoceri?), &c., &c.

Scorching of Fires - Is brea liom é!

Agus tá tú ceart, a Dhomhaill, when I chose "collection" to represent multiple incidents of the act of ignition, I was remiss in not realizing that there are much better words such as the one you indicate above - thank you.

But maybe the solution is to avoid the use of a mass nouns that could be corrupted into countable forms, and therefore violate the venerated King's/Queen's English. For example, when you are referring to fire as a mass noun, just say or write "fire." But, when it comes to having one or more "scorchings" of fires, you can no longer say or write "fire." You must use an alternative word which, and thank goodness there is one, would be conflagration.

Do_chinniúint, I see your point about events. We had a supplier of electrical equipment whose products were catching on fire at one of our customer's sites. When we complained to the supplier's upper management that their equipment was catching on fire, we were told "they don't like to use that term [fire] in their industry. So, from that day on we always referred to such indicents as "pyrotechnic events."

So, until we can sort this whole thing out, maybe we can find some universally accepted term for multiple cups of coffee - how about caffeinating events?

Student



(Message edited by Student on July 16, 2008)

LOL...that's what I was saying before. There is no plural form for "coffee" in English. At least not when you are talking about the liquid we drink.

I honestly don't know what happens to it when we are talking about giving it a completely different meaning. Could "coffees" be possible? I am willing to say that it might be possible in this sense. I don't know to be honest. But, if it did, don't you think there would be some indication of it in a dictionary or somewhere? I mean if the OED is willing to go out of their way to reference it, wouldn't they take an extra step or two to make note that it is possible to pluralize it?

I figured that if there was, it would have been noted somewhere ;-)

But that's the great thing about the real world verses the ideal world...anything is possible.

(Message edited by do_chinniúint on July 16, 2008)

I mean if the OED is willing to go out of their way to reference it, wouldn't they take an extra step or two to make note that it is possible to pluralize it?

I figured that if there was, it would have been noted somewhere.

It is noted there if you actually understand how to read a dictionary entry. The OED--like most dictionaries of English--only explicitly lists plural forms when they are morphologically unpredictable (e.g. oxen for ox).

I mean, it outright tells you that coffee can be used with an indefinite article. How many mass-nouns can you name that this is true of? How many other words do you know of in English which can take an indefinite article but do not have a plural form?

"A common misunderstanding concerning the mass/count distinction is that it is based on the type of thing the different nouns refer to. Mass nouns are thought to refer to things (or substances) that can't be counted, while count nouns are supposed to refer to ones that can. That this can't be right is seen with our examples above, using chair (count) and furniture (mass). If we have seven chairs in a room, they can be described both as "chairs" and as "furniture". The mass/count distinction must therefore pertain to the expressions themselves ("chair" vs. "furniture") and not to the things they refer to."

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_noun

In truth you got me there a Dhomhnaillín,

The only other words that I can think of off the top of my head are other liquids like milk and lemonade.

In her book, the author gives a huge list of common noncount nouns. But I have to be honest, most of these words I myself would not have thought a noncount noun, and would have thrown (a,an) in front of. I know I do it without question in speech, and I tried a few in a word document and did a grammar check on it and only two of the words (milk, lemonade) were corrected by the grammar check.

I don't know if this means it can be done, or that it is being allowed do to its frequent usage in speech now...

What she says on page 231 is:

"A (or an) is not used to mark noncount nouns such as sugar, gold, honesty, or jewelry. However, a few exceptions have found their way into the English language over the years do to things such as increased slang usage, foreign grammatical influence, and formal revisions."

One of these could have happened with this word, or we could be in the process of seeing this happen to the word.

Ah Student...LOL...I suggest we honor Irish a little and solidify once and for all the usage and call them "Caifí." That way, we are still calling them "coffees" in both languages, we are showing that there is a difference of meaning with the difference in spelling, and we are also showing that Irish has a plural for this word ;-)

This way nitpickers like myself won't have any questions or problems...LOL

Níor mhó mo mhuinínsa i ngramadóir de chuid Mhicreabhog ná i bhfoclóir oirirc Ocsfoird, ach gach neach ar a chomhairle féin mar a deirtear.

Maidir le focla Gaeilge, tá an dá shórt ann, agus táid ann a bhí ina n-ainmfhocail toirt fadó is nach bhfuil anois: "eachtra" agus "glasra" na samplaí is túisce a ritheann liom.

Scríobh Do Chinniúiunt:

...I suggest we honor Irish a little and solidify once and for all the usage and call them "Caifí."

Sure thing, Do_Chinniúiunt. When all is said and done in regard to this topic we all deserve a coffee a cup of coffee.

(Message edited by Student on July 17, 2008)

I thought I would ask my sister who is teaches college-level English in Seattle and is a coordinator of her university's writing program about whether coffee can be used as a count noun. Here is her response, complete with a dictionary reference which hopefully will please Do Chinniúint to no end.

quote:

Of course there is: just take a look at the various "coffees" available in any supermarket aisle. There's Ethiopian, Italian Roast, Henry's Breakfast Blend, etc.
Regarding the "two coffees": this is an issue of conventions and implied understanding of the discourse community. Today, we don't have to necessarily "measure" the coffee by the cup. The listener understands that there is a "vessel" for the coffee: it may be a shot, a cup, or even a glass. So, you may absolutely go to the Starbuck's counter and request "two coffees" or even say "two grande ice mochas." The "recipient" (aka audience) understands that a "mechanism" is needed to hold the delectable potable.
Also, I did a quick check in my handy Merriam Webster's Dictionary(2003). Funny, "two coffees" is used as an example ("2. a cup of coffee (two coffees") . Ha!

Mac Léinn Caifí (Student of Coffees)

I will accept what she says about the modern take of the usage...I even said that was possible above.

However, I also have that edition of Webster's Dictionary, and the example given is again one of a spoken reference. So...I will not except that as saying that coffees is acceptable in formal written English.

And what your sister is talking about is not a "noncount noun" but a "noncount noun in a count sense."

"A special case of the use of noncount nouns in a count sense has to do with classification. Sometimes a usually noncount noun can be understood as one item separate and distinct from other items of the same category. The nouns that function in this way often denote foods and beverages: food(s), drink(s), wine(s), bread(s), coffee(s), fruit(s), and so on. However it is important to remember that these exceptions require that the rule for pluralizing be revised: count nouns and nouns used in a count sense pluralize; noncount nouns and nouns used in a noncount sense do not.

The two possibilities in each half of the rule require different choices. If you know that a particular noun must be either count or noncount and cannot be both, you need to decide only if it is possible to pluralize the noun. On the other hand, if you know that a particular noun may be used in either a count or noncount sense, then you need to decide whether it is appropriate to pluralize."

(page 232) Rules for Writers and Writing.




(Message edited by do_chinniúint on July 17, 2008)

quote:

However, I also have that edition of Webster's Dictionary, and the example given is again one of a spoken reference. So...I will not except that as saying that coffees is acceptable in formal written English.

There's a chap that's 67 years old, he doesn't live fair from me. He has gout and he doesn't give out sweets at halloween. I heard a kid kicked a ball into his garden one time and never got it back. If you like, I can ask him if it's acceptable to write "two coffees" in formal written English.

However, I also have that edition of Webster's Dictionary, and the example given is again one of a spoken reference. So...I will not except that as saying that coffees is acceptable in formal written English.

I also have a copy of the Merriam-Webster handy. (As a lexicographer, surely you know it's bad form to cite "Webster's dictionary" since the name entered the public domain in 1889 and, as a result, there are several different dictionaries with "Webster's" in their name.) Nowhere on my copy does it say that the example "two coffees" is drawn from the spoken rather than the written language. Where did you get the idea that it does?

(Moreover, the Merriam-Wester, unlike the OED, doesn't use the label "colloquial" to distinguish predominately spoken usages. That makes it a rather quixotic choice for arbiter of "proper standard written English".)

er.... lowly Cork English speaker here but should't you have said "So... I will not ACCEPT that as saying that coffees is acceptable in formal written English."

Good catch Dave...LOL...sometimes I type and submit without spellchecking ;-)

And yes, I know that's an invitation for a comment or two!

In my two Merriam-Webster Dictionaries (2003 and 2005) have the same entries:

coffee (no pl.) 1. a drink made from the seeds of a tropical shrub, the shrub or seeds (coffee beans). 2. a brown color. {two coffees colloq.} --coffeehouse 1. a public place where coffee and other refreshments are served. 2. a café, nightclub. --coffee (klatsh) an informal gathering where coffee is served often after a social meal.

Granted they are different formats, but the info is the same. If you go to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary they have a different format, in which they list {two coffees} also but do not give the colloq.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coffee

Now I don't know why it is different on the site, but two of their more recent versions in book form both list it as a colloquial usage. If anyone has the most recent version, which I believe is only on CD ROM, perhaps they can tell us how the entry is listed, but the fact remains it does in fact list it as colloquial.

Here's the thing I don't understand. Everyone here "accepts" ;-) that the word is a noncount noun. And a noncount noun has no plural. So how can you add an -s to it and suddenly you have a plural form? You can't. In order to do that you have to take the noun out of its natural context and place it into a new context. What the sister was saying above is that in past we had to count this noun by assigning it a mode of measurement a.k.a "a cup" and then instead of counting the coffee, we counted the cups of coffee. Now we just assume that coffee is in a measurable form and therefore countable. But what we have done it created a new context for the word.

It is no longer coffee, an uncountable liquid...but rather the single concept of coffee in a cup. But in my thinking we are still not counting coffee, we are counting the cups of coffee, but now we are just being lazy and not saying cups.


(Message edited by do_chinniúint on July 17, 2008)

52 posts on the use of "coffee" versus "coffees"....geez...

I was about to read all these posts, but then I asked myself: "how much coffee do I have to brew and how many coffees do I have to drink before I swallow any of it?"

Beidh tae in áit caife agam anocht.

It may seem a little unusual I admit, but there is something more important going on here. We are actually discussing the rules of the spoken verses the rules of the written. And more important, how our habits of the spoken have spilled into the world of the written.

This is happening in Irish also.

For example, look at the following sentence and ask yourself if you were an Englis teacher and a student wrote these sentences, would you think it is OK or not:

1) We drank six coffees this morning.

Now read the following sentences:

2) I found Shellys coat in Mikes room.

3) There house is very big.

4) I will have a hamburger a water and some cake.

If you think that there was nothing wrong with sentence 1, but there are grammar errors in sentences 2,3,4. You have not only set yourself up for hypocracy, but you are a bad English teacher because they all contain errors.

Now let's take it a step further, as an English teacher you go to correct the boy's errors and his defense is:

1) Well that's how I say it.

2) That's how the native speakers do it.

3) That's how everyone says it.

4) I know that the grammar books say this, but I found a single instance with it written like this.

Does this make the boy's sentences any more correct?

When things like this happen, it sets the ball rolling.

If you were walking down a street in any Gaeltacht and you asked a known fluent speaker "Cad is ainm duit?" And their answer was "Bob tá ainm dom." Should we ignore such a trivial mistake? Should we just accept that's the way it is for him so deal with it? Or do we take a chance and correct them?

If "Tá caifí agam" is possible in Irish, which is what I wanted to know about in the beginning, then that's the way it is. Cool

But to not challenge a person who says it's the same in English...well, I am going to make certain of it if that's the case.

I hate to belabor this, but in the name of morbid curiosity I have to ask...

However, I also have that edition of Webster's Dictionary, and the example given is again one of a spoken reference. So...I will not except that as saying that coffees is acceptable in formal written English.

In other words, you're saying that the lexicographers who compiled that dictionary have deliberately used an incorrect plural, and moreover failed to note it?

Sorry, DC, but this is no longer bordering on the ridiculous, I think we've pretty much crossed the line!

Actually, what I am saying is that in the 2003 edition, they did not write "colloq." for colloquial when they did in the 1995, 2005, and the 2006 editions. Whether it was deliberate or not, I couldn't tell you.

But I did find it also noted in my 1995 The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary.

I think you are still focusing on the wrong details of the thread. How does a noncount noun, which by its very definition has no plural, magically get one? Does that make sense to you?

If you will allow that some noncount nouns can act as both count and noncount, there is a possibility. Even I will admit this, but what I am asking of people here is to question how did it come into practice?

Believe it or not, anyone can make a dictionary. And there are always the chances of errors. If all it takes is a single entry in a dictionary to make it real, then I am about to start magically adding to the Irish language ;-)

(Message edited by do_chinniúint on July 18, 2008)

quote:

I think you are still focusing on the wrong details of the thread. How does a noncount noun, which by its very definition has no plural, magically get one? Does that make sense to you?

When someone says, "I bought a coffee", they're talking about that cylindrical piece of styrofoam they get from Starbucks that contains coffee drink. That's what "a coffee" is.

Anyway language doesn't have rules, stuff can happen "magically" without it seeming weird at all.

quote:

how much coffee do I have to brew and how many coffees do I have to drink before I swallow any of it?

Ar dtus, shíl mé gur ceist mhatamaitic é seo - an ghreannmhar a Mhaidhc!

quote:

52 posts on the use of "coffee" versus "coffees"....geez...

A Do Chinniúint, taitníonn seo snáithe liom, ach is feidir linn a chraobhaigh é, más é do thoil é?

Mar shampla,

I had two espressos today.... or would that be espressoes?

And another question, le bhur dtoil, what is the Irish form for espresso? I couldn't find it in my dictionaries or online.

Today espressos, tomorrow lattes

FRC - GRMA

(Message edited by student on July 18, 2008)

52 posts on the use of "coffee" versus "coffees"....geez...

Níor thuigeas riamh aidhm na tráchtanna mar seo. Ní chím féin an chúis leis céad trácht fésna babaithe Angelina Jolie nó míle ceann fén iPhone úr, ach ní dheinim an meancóg agus ceapaim nach cuma leis na daoine eile sin mo thuairim.

I had two espressos today.... or would that be espressoes?

Cad é fé espressi?

(Message edited by Domhnaillín_Breac_na_dTruslóg on July 18, 2008)

Shouldn't ye be arguing about the rules of English grammar on an English language discussion board? Could you be bothered like?

I'll be using "coffees" anywho... I don't think the world will collapse somehow :)And plus, Irish plural endings are much more free than in English, no?

I've seen for áit: áiteacha, áiteanna... for crann: crainn, crainnte etc... In English we've started changing words in everyday use and tweaking them to suit us, it's what makes it a living language. The "rules" aren't so rigid that they wouldn't allow changes like coffees. That would stop the language evolving, wouldn't it? I'm sure an Irish speaker wouldn't even notice.

Tomás...

That's sort of the problem that has been causing this thread to keep going. When you say "a coffee" you are talking about a "cylindrical piece of styrofoam they get from Starbucks that contains coffee drink." That's the context you are using for the word.

But when I say coffee, I mean only the liquid. Which adheres to the grammar I have been defending all this time. The context that we give it generates the grammar that applies to it. For instance, in your context, you are taking a noncount noun (which cannot be pluralized) and giving it a count noun sense (which can pluralize by altering the phrase). But to my knowledge, you can't do that with the word in my context.

The phrase "two coffees" might even be a contracted phrase. This could also be an explanation for its existence. In the past we gave a unit of measurement in order to create a count noun sense. (two cups of coffee) However, through the evolution of English, we have contracted the phrase to (two coffees) the same way we contract "that is to that's." I don't know, it's just a thought I just had.

And while I understood what you meant by the comment, I have to ask...if there are no rules to language, what is grammar?

I think a better way of saying what you mean might be something like, "there are no set rules to language." ;-)

Is this a topic for and English board instead of here, absolutely, but there is value here for Irish also. If anything, it demonstrates the necessity to learn a noun, its function, and all the possible usages.

And for the people who have had to stomach through my rants, I do apologize for that. It's just that we take for granted our mother tongues whatever they might be. How can we truly learn another language, especially Irish which requires and advanced understanding of a noun, its meaning, and all its possible usages, if we cannot fully understand our own?

quote:

And while I understood what you meant by the comment, I have to ask...if there are no rules to language, what is grammar?

Grammar is an attempt, made by human people, to reverse-engineer a language. They don't have the blue-prints for the language and they can't talk to the people who invented the language. What they do is try analyse similar terms, sentences and phrases to see a pattern. When they see this pattern enough, they decide they have a rule. When the rule breaks down, they try to make an exception for that rule. And when that rule breaks down, they try to make an exception for that rule.

Grammar is useful for people who are starting out learning a language; I mean it's easier to say to someone "put a verb in the past tense by putting a séimhiú on the first letter", rather than having to tell them the past tense of a verb every time they ask. Even our brains make patterns, I mean there's countless verbs that I haven't ever put in the past tense but I'd have no problem giving it a go.

Only problem is though, is that there isn't always a pattern. The past tense of "swim" is "swam". There's stuff that stand out on their own. For instance I'm a native speaker of English but I use "there's" as an abbreviation of "there are". I know grammar says it's "wrong" but it comes natural to me, therefore it's right.

Grammar doesn't exist, that's the real truth of it. Even if someone were to persuade a grammarian that it's OK to say "two coffess", the grammarian would just take the upper hand by adding to his little grammar book "Exception: the word coffee is irregular.

The whole thing of "formal written" is based on the idea of there always being a pattern, and thus is inherently flawed.

A Tomás,

I must confess that I think you are a too hard on grammar. LOL Personally, I feel that grammar is not an attempt to reverse-engineer a language, but more like an attempt to take a snap shot of language at a specific point in time. With each snap shot we take, we create a another piece to our puzzle.

For all our talk about the future, at the end of the day it is our past that rules us. Linguistically speaking, grammar is the tool we use to answer the hard questions:

1) How did we get here?

2) Where are we going?

3) Why are things the way they are?

And so forth...

Well in my own personal and humble opinion, the study of grammar has no merit other than helping beginners to get the hang of a language quicker. I don't see why a proficient speaker of a language would have any want or need for grammar; I mean when's the last time you had to stop and think about a grammatical rule before you said something?

I subconciously turn "the boy runs" into "the boys run" -- at no point do I stop and think "Hmm well I'll have to put an s on boys to make it plural, and then drop the s from runs to make it plural.

If I was a beginner learner of English, it'd probably be handy if someone told me about this rule/pattern, but I'm not a beginner, I'm a native speaker, and my subconscious does all the work for me.

Fair enough if you like grammar, but I just think it's a futile aim at perfection. Find a rule and I'll find you an exception. At what rule-to-exception ratio do you discard the rule? It's all a bit wishy-washy to me.