The collective noun 'duck'
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I know that collective nouns don't take the indefinite article as the one in the following construction:
- They had 'duck' for lunch.
But is it Ok if we use it In the same construction, especially, to emphasize that they had only one duck?
- They had 'a duck' for lunch.
indefinite-articles collective-nouns
asked 2 days ago
Mido Mido
428416
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I know that collective nouns don't take the indefinite article as the one in the following construction:
- They had 'duck' for lunch.
But is it Ok if we use it In the same construction, especially, to emphasize that they had only one duck?
- They had 'a duck' for lunch.
indefinite-articles collective-nouns
asked 2 days ago
Mido Mido
428416
3
Yeah, that's totally fine. But this question would find a better home on our sister site, English Language Learners. Also, I'm not great on terminology, but I believe "duck" in the first instance isn't a "collective noun", but a "mass noun". The collective noun associated with ducks is "a flock", IIUC.
– Dan Bron
2 days ago
2
The contrast is between the non-count noun "duck", which denotes a food substance, and the count use where "a duck" denotes a particular kind of waterbird.
– BillJ
2 days ago
1
@DanBorn: Yea it seems that l've used the wrong term. I should have used 'non-count noun or mass noun:. Anyway thanks for your comment.
– Mido Mido
2 days ago
1
@BillJ: l do agree with you. I was seeking confirmation about the correctness of 'duck' as a count noun in the second construction.
– Mido Mido
2 days ago
The question doesn't make sense. You can use the definite article, the indefinite article, or no article at all. All three versions have meaning. So, it's not clear what you're asking. As far as I can tell, the answer is simply "yes, it's okay."
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I know that collective nouns don't take the indefinite article as the one in the following construction:
- They had 'duck' for lunch.
But is it Ok if we use it In the same construction, especially, to emphasize that they had only one duck?
- They had 'a duck' for lunch.
indefinite-articles collective-nouns
asked 2 days ago
Mido Mido
428416
I know that collective nouns don't take the indefinite article as the one in the following construction:
- They had 'duck' for lunch.
But is it Ok if we use it In the same construction, especially, to emphasize that they had only one duck?
- They had 'a duck' for lunch.
indefinite-articles collective-nouns
indefinite-articles collective-nouns
asked 2 days ago
Mido Mido
428416
asked 2 days ago
Mido Mido
428416
asked 2 days ago
Mido Mido
428416
asked 2 days ago
Mido Mido
428416
asked 2 days ago
Mido Mido
428416
428416
3
Yeah, that's totally fine. But this question would find a better home on our sister site, English Language Learners. Also, I'm not great on terminology, but I believe "duck" in the first instance isn't a "collective noun", but a "mass noun". The collective noun associated with ducks is "a flock", IIUC.
– Dan Bron
2 days ago
2
The contrast is between the non-count noun "duck", which denotes a food substance, and the count use where "a duck" denotes a particular kind of waterbird.
– BillJ
2 days ago
1
@DanBorn: Yea it seems that l've used the wrong term. I should have used 'non-count noun or mass noun:. Anyway thanks for your comment.
– Mido Mido
2 days ago
1
@BillJ: l do agree with you. I was seeking confirmation about the correctness of 'duck' as a count noun in the second construction.
– Mido Mido
2 days ago
The question doesn't make sense. You can use the definite article, the indefinite article, or no article at all. All three versions have meaning. So, it's not clear what you're asking. As far as I can tell, the answer is simply "yes, it's okay."
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
add a comment |
3
Yeah, that's totally fine. But this question would find a better home on our sister site, English Language Learners. Also, I'm not great on terminology, but I believe "duck" in the first instance isn't a "collective noun", but a "mass noun". The collective noun associated with ducks is "a flock", IIUC.
– Dan Bron
2 days ago
2
The contrast is between the non-count noun "duck", which denotes a food substance, and the count use where "a duck" denotes a particular kind of waterbird.
– BillJ
2 days ago
1
@DanBorn: Yea it seems that l've used the wrong term. I should have used 'non-count noun or mass noun:. Anyway thanks for your comment.
– Mido Mido
2 days ago
1
@BillJ: l do agree with you. I was seeking confirmation about the correctness of 'duck' as a count noun in the second construction.
– Mido Mido
2 days ago
The question doesn't make sense. You can use the definite article, the indefinite article, or no article at all. All three versions have meaning. So, it's not clear what you're asking. As far as I can tell, the answer is simply "yes, it's okay."
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
3
3
Yeah, that's totally fine. But this question would find a better home on our sister site, English Language Learners. Also, I'm not great on terminology, but I believe "duck" in the first instance isn't a "collective noun", but a "mass noun". The collective noun associated with ducks is "a flock", IIUC.
– Dan Bron
2 days ago
Yeah, that's totally fine. But this question would find a better home on our sister site, English Language Learners. Also, I'm not great on terminology, but I believe "duck" in the first instance isn't a "collective noun", but a "mass noun". The collective noun associated with ducks is "a flock", IIUC.
– Dan Bron
2 days ago
2
2
The contrast is between the non-count noun "duck", which denotes a food substance, and the count use where "a duck" denotes a particular kind of waterbird.
– BillJ
2 days ago
The contrast is between the non-count noun "duck", which denotes a food substance, and the count use where "a duck" denotes a particular kind of waterbird.
– BillJ
2 days ago
1
1
@DanBorn: Yea it seems that l've used the wrong term. I should have used 'non-count noun or mass noun:. Anyway thanks for your comment.
– Mido Mido
2 days ago
@DanBorn: Yea it seems that l've used the wrong term. I should have used 'non-count noun or mass noun:. Anyway thanks for your comment.
– Mido Mido
2 days ago
1
1
@BillJ: l do agree with you. I was seeking confirmation about the correctness of 'duck' as a count noun in the second construction.
– Mido Mido
2 days ago
@BillJ: l do agree with you. I was seeking confirmation about the correctness of 'duck' as a count noun in the second construction.
– Mido Mido
2 days ago
The question doesn't make sense. You can use the definite article, the indefinite article, or no article at all. All three versions have meaning. So, it's not clear what you're asking. As far as I can tell, the answer is simply "yes, it's okay."
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
The question doesn't make sense. You can use the definite article, the indefinite article, or no article at all. All three versions have meaning. So, it's not clear what you're asking. As far as I can tell, the answer is simply "yes, it's okay."
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
I think I've answered this question here before, but I'll apply the answer here.
What happens is that the noun duck is not referring to the specific animal nor to the type of animal, but rather to the meat of the animal. The meat of a duck is also called duck. The meat of a chicken, as a parallel, is also called chicken.
However, the name of the meat does not always share the name with the name of the animal. Contrast this with the meat of a cow or steer which is called beef or the meat of a pig which can be called pork.
This being said, be aware of the difference in phrasing:
They had duck for dinner.
Refers to the kind of meat that was eaten.
They had a duck for dinner.
Refers to the quantity of the animal that was eaten
answered 2 days ago
psosuna
1,781314
Your answer is really simple and clear. Thank you very much.
– Mido Mido
2 days ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
I think I've answered this question here before, but I'll apply the answer here.
What happens is that the noun duck is not referring to the specific animal nor to the type of animal, but rather to the meat of the animal. The meat of a duck is also called duck. The meat of a chicken, as a parallel, is also called chicken.
However, the name of the meat does not always share the name with the name of the animal. Contrast this with the meat of a cow or steer which is called beef or the meat of a pig which can be called pork.
This being said, be aware of the difference in phrasing:
They had duck for dinner.
Refers to the kind of meat that was eaten.
They had a duck for dinner.
Refers to the quantity of the animal that was eaten
answered 2 days ago
psosuna
1,781314
Your answer is really simple and clear. Thank you very much.
– Mido Mido
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
I think I've answered this question here before, but I'll apply the answer here.
What happens is that the noun duck is not referring to the specific animal nor to the type of animal, but rather to the meat of the animal. The meat of a duck is also called duck. The meat of a chicken, as a parallel, is also called chicken.
However, the name of the meat does not always share the name with the name of the animal. Contrast this with the meat of a cow or steer which is called beef or the meat of a pig which can be called pork.
This being said, be aware of the difference in phrasing:
They had duck for dinner.
Refers to the kind of meat that was eaten.
They had a duck for dinner.
Refers to the quantity of the animal that was eaten
answered 2 days ago
psosuna
1,781314
Your answer is really simple and clear. Thank you very much.
– Mido Mido
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
I think I've answered this question here before, but I'll apply the answer here.
What happens is that the noun duck is not referring to the specific animal nor to the type of animal, but rather to the meat of the animal. The meat of a duck is also called duck. The meat of a chicken, as a parallel, is also called chicken.
However, the name of the meat does not always share the name with the name of the animal. Contrast this with the meat of a cow or steer which is called beef or the meat of a pig which can be called pork.
This being said, be aware of the difference in phrasing:
They had duck for dinner.
Refers to the kind of meat that was eaten.
They had a duck for dinner.
Refers to the quantity of the animal that was eaten
answered 2 days ago
psosuna
1,781314
I think I've answered this question here before, but I'll apply the answer here.
What happens is that the noun duck is not referring to the specific animal nor to the type of animal, but rather to the meat of the animal. The meat of a duck is also called duck. The meat of a chicken, as a parallel, is also called chicken.
However, the name of the meat does not always share the name with the name of the animal. Contrast this with the meat of a cow or steer which is called beef or the meat of a pig which can be called pork.
This being said, be aware of the difference in phrasing:
They had duck for dinner.
Refers to the kind of meat that was eaten.
They had a duck for dinner.
Refers to the quantity of the animal that was eaten
answered 2 days ago
psosuna
1,781314
answered 2 days ago
psosuna
1,781314
answered 2 days ago
psosuna
1,781314
answered 2 days ago
psosuna
1,781314
1,781314
Your answer is really simple and clear. Thank you very much.
– Mido Mido
2 days ago
add a comment |
Your answer is really simple and clear. Thank you very much.
– Mido Mido
2 days ago
Your answer is really simple and clear. Thank you very much.
– Mido Mido
2 days ago
Your answer is really simple and clear. Thank you very much.
– Mido Mido
2 days ago
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f473158%2fthe-collective-noun-duck%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
Yeah, that's totally fine. But this question would find a better home on our sister site, English Language Learners. Also, I'm not great on terminology, but I believe "duck" in the first instance isn't a "collective noun", but a "mass noun". The collective noun associated with ducks is "a flock", IIUC.
– Dan Bron
2 days ago
2
The contrast is between the non-count noun "duck", which denotes a food substance, and the count use where "a duck" denotes a particular kind of waterbird.
– BillJ
2 days ago
1
@DanBorn: Yea it seems that l've used the wrong term. I should have used 'non-count noun or mass noun:. Anyway thanks for your comment.
– Mido Mido
2 days ago
1
@BillJ: l do agree with you. I was seeking confirmation about the correctness of 'duck' as a count noun in the second construction.
– Mido Mido
2 days ago
The question doesn't make sense. You can use the definite article, the indefinite article, or no article at all. All three versions have meaning. So, it's not clear what you're asking. As far as I can tell, the answer is simply "yes, it's okay."
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago