"there are some clothes" o "there is some clothes"
As "clothes" is countless, I would like to know if I have to use "there are" o "there is" in the sentence. Thank you for your attention.
25 Answers
In Spanish this question appears redundant since there is and there are translates as "hay" for both.
If you are questioning what to use in English, then it has to be there are some clothes.
HI Nila, we talk about uncountable and countable nouns (not countless)
Clothes is a plural noun, hence not uncountable. So the verb needs to match the number. 
There are some clothes.
Ni he encontrado esta página para ti, si es dificil enseñar lo de countable y uncountable, más aún lo es enseñar esto.
I am always taking the comic approach when I teach this to children.
I normally tell them that all liquids are uncountable, but as you can say dos cafes or dos cervezas in Spanish , I make it clear to them using the word milk. You certainly can say dos leches in Spanish but that would be a whole different meaning, jeje 
So they understand that normally and as it sticks in their mind, they have no problem remembering the liquid idea.
Con niños hay que tener ideas, si no se aburren, claro , hablo de niños de unos 10 años o más.
Very confusing the idea of paper being a countable noun at times.
Have you got a paper to read? (=> newspaper)
paper I want to draw a picture. Have you got some paper?
Hi samdie,
You´re definitely challenging my thinking...
(my quotes of you are from your previous two posts...not just the previous one)
You can't use many in front of any singular noun (whether countable or not). So this "rule" depends on (is simply a consequence of) the prior assertion that uncountable nouns can only be singular.
Well, okay, but you can´t use much in front of countable nouns -- singular or plural either, can you? Example:
- "He has much grain." (correct)
- "He has much hammer." (wrong)
- "He has much hammers" (wrong)
- "He has much clothes" (wrong)
...it seems to me that if one cannot provide a plausible example that involves the counting of clothes/groceries, then they are (ipso facto) uncountable. The only alternative that I can see is to claim that "they are countable but one cannot count them"
I can definitely see your point. But, let´s try it from a different angle. In general, a plural noun has been counted. Otherwise, it would not be plural. Thus, as a general rule, plural nouns are viewed as representative of countable items. Clothes/groceries are plural and are convenient ways to refer to collections of unspecified numbers of countable clothing/grocery items...providing the collection contains two or more such items. So one needn´t have counted all the clothes/groceries but merely ascertained that there are two or more items.
Even with Ian's "three scissors". One hears this fairly frequently but I, for one, wouldn't say it. I see no real difference between the "uncountability" of the words that always go with "pairs" (trousers, pants, eyeglasses, scissors, etc.) and that of milk/rice/meat (for which some word of measure liter/kilo/piece/etc. is required when one wishes to precisely quantify them).
Words like trousers, pants, eyeglasses, scissors, and the like are definitely odd because they are singular and plural at the same time. I can see WHY they´re plural: pants have two legs, scissors have two blades, eyeglasses have two lenses, and so forth. But, they are essentially single items and as single items, I consider them countable. However, the fact that we say things like "a pair of scissors" is not the same thing as saying 3 cups of water. Divide a gallon of water into 4 quarts or 16 cups or 128 ounces and you still have water. But divide up a pair of scissors, and you no longer have scissors.
Although some assert that uncountable nouns are always singular...The assertion that any/all "uncountable" nouns must be in the singular seems to me to be (wrong ...
I may have said such a thing, but I want you to know before I wrote any posts on this matter I read this page at Perdues University´s Online Writer´s Lab, which covers countable and uncountable nouns. I agree with the information presented there, and it definitely indicates that uncountable nouns can have a countable sense and, in that countable sense, can be plural, which is a point I meant to delve into later if the asker seemed interested. I may have been over-simplifying a topic perhaps for time constraints, absent-mindedness, arthritic pain in my hands or whatever. I truly was not expecting this level of analyses of my statements.
I am going to cut and paste some information of the website because I do not understand very well why I cannot say: three scissors (for example).
Here you are: (are you able to explain to me, please?)
Some uncountable nouns are plural. They have no singular forms with the same meaning, and cannot be used with numbers. Examples are: trousers, jeans, pyjamas, pants, scissors, spectacles, glasses, arms, goods, customs, groceries, clothes and thanks
Hi nila,
Countable or not, I go on thinking it is a plural noun.
Yes, scissors is a plural noun -- even if you are only referring to one pair of scissors.
By the way, earlier I said that "pair" is always singular, but I was wrong. It can be singular or plural. Of course, pairs (with an s) would be plural.
Let me quote from Answers.com
The noun pair can be followed by a singular or plural verb. The singular is always used when pair denotes the set taken as a single entity: This pair of shoes is on sale. A plural verb is used when the members are considered as individuals: The pair are working more harmoniously now. After a number other than one, pair itself can be either singular or plural, but the plural is now more common: She bought six pairs (or pair) of stockings.
It seems clear that we cannot use "much" with countable nouns. Samdie seems to agree with the idea that scissors is an uncountable noun which has to be divided into parts to be counted. But you think that a pair of scissors cannot be divided into parts. Countable or not, I go on thinking it is a plural noun. By the way, Webdunce, I liked a lot the information of the website. I had included this adress in my favourite places of Internet, but I had never read such a piece of information. Sorry, if any mistake, I am trying to express myself in English. But I suppose it can be difficult not to make mistakes.
I see no reason to assume that a noun that is (un)countable in English will/must be treated the same way in any other language. Although some assert that uncountable nouns are always singular, it seems to me that if one cannot provide a plausible example that involves the counting of clothes/groceries, then they are (ipso facto) uncountable. The only alternative that I can see is to claim that "they are countable but one cannot count them" (which I take to be an insult to common sense and an abuse of language). The assertion that any/all "uncountable" nouns must be in the singular seems to me to be (wrong and) a simple failure to have taken into account the cases of plural nouns which also cannot be numerically quantified.
If, on the other hand, you wish to maintain that the term "uncountable" has always been identified only with singular nouns (and, further, concede, that this definition is misleading/wrongheaded however well established), that's a somewhat different situation. However, that still leaves unanswered the question "What about the plural nouns for which common usage does not permit enumeration?"
Anyway, I suppose it is possible to use "some" in the sentence. Countable or not, it is almost sure you must use the verb in the plural form.
"Many clothes" sounds strange, but "much clothes" does not sound better. Then, what is the correct expression?. If "clothes" is plural, then the correct expression should be "many clothes", shouldn't it?
I'm not sure that I would agree about "clothes" being countable. "There are five clothes on the table." sounds terrible, while "There five books on the table." sounds quite normal. I don't much like the sound of "two pieces of clothes" either. I would change that to "two pieces of clothing". Several web sites state that uncountable nouns only occur in the singular but at least one "www.perfectyourenglish.com/grammar/countable-nouns.htm" agrees with me that there are uncountable plural nouns, as well, and provides examples of about half a dozen.
I see it is a difficult concept. I appreciate your effort to clarify this part of English for yourself. I hope that, ultimately, we help you.
Uncountable nouns are things we don't generally count because it is too difficult to or because we don't normally or because the word refers to too broad a concept...rice, water, sand, cheese...these things must be measured. Equipment is an uncountable noun also, but a bit harder to explain.
However, items that are considered "pairs" ARE countable: glasses, pants, trousers, scissors. I can easily count these items. But even if I have only one item, it is still plural and takes a plural verb (unless I use the words "pair of" in front of it, in which case the verb must agree with "pair")
My glasses are on the table. (The word "glasses" is plural; so use are). A pair of glasses is on the table. (Pair is singular so use is). Two pairs of glasses are on the table (Pairs is plural so use are).
Clothes is not in any of those categories; it's just a word that is ALWAYS plural: it means "two or more items of clothing."
I think it would help if you left out the word "some" in the example. The word "some" doesn't change anything in the grammar (though it does change the meaning a bit).
There are clothes on the table. (Clothes is plural; so use are) There is money on the table. (Money is singular; so use is). The word "some" is just an adjective in the sentence (in English) and has no effect on the verb.
I see... You think that "scissors" can be uncountable because it needs to go with "a pair of", "two pairs of". In the same way as "milk" needs a word of measure. Under that point of view, you can be right.
you cannot use the word "many" in front of an uncountable noun.
You can't use many in front of any singular noun (whether countable or not). So this "rule" depends on (is simply a consequence of) the prior assertion that uncountable nouns can only be singular.
I suggest, instead, that you consider the meaning of "(un)countable". i.e. that which can be/is enumerated or not. I can buy more groceries/clothes than someone else but I can't buy five groceries/clothes compared to his three groceries/clothes.
Even with Ian's "three scissors". One hears this fairly frequently but I, for one, wouldn't say it. I see no real difference between the "uncountability" of the words that always go with "pairs" (trousers, pants, eyeglasses, scissors, etc.) and that of milk/rice/meat (for which some word of measure liter/kilo/piece/etc. is required when one wishes to precisely quantify them).
