A piece of clothes
I thought that after “clothes” the verb goes in plural. But, what happens when I say: A piece of clothes?
“There was a piece of clothes on the sofa”
“My piece of clothes is on the sofa”
I think it depends. Although the dictionary says that goes in plural, I suppose it will depend on the type of sentence. What do you think?
8 Answers
Hi Nila,
“There was a piece of clothes on the sofa”
“My piece of clothes is on the sofa”
Neither one of these would be a good way to say what you are trying to say. If you are talking about a single article of clothing then it somewhat awkward to say "piece of clothes." You would instead use "clothing," so your sentences would become:
“There was a piece of clothing on the sofa”
A piece of my clothing is on the sofa
My clothing is on the sofa
That being said, remember that as far as the plural is concerned, in the construction that you have presented, the verb has to agree with the word "piece" and not "clothes" because "piece" is the singular subject and "of clothes/of my clothing" is used as a modifier.
If you were to make the word "clothes" the subject of your sentences then this would require a plural verb form:
My clothes were on the couch.
My clothes are dirty, and I need to wash them
I hope that this clears some things up for you.
Well as "a piece" is singular you cannot use clothes. This would have to be a piece of clothing.
So in your two examples you would have
There was a piece of clothing on the sofa”
"A piece of my clothing is on the sofa”
"Two pieces of clothing", would indeed be correct as would "there has to be". Although "article" and "item" are more formal and correct I doubt that many peope would actually use that in the US.
Actually, I would prefer you said "article of clothing" or "item of clothing" instead of "piece of clothing," I don't know why, but "piece of clothing" just sounds a bit strange to me.
And, usually when when we are referring to only one article of clothing, we will identify it specifically: shirt, blouse, pair of pants, skirt, or whatever.
Instead of "There is an article of clothing on the chair," you should say, "There is a shirt on the chair."
Article of clothing / piece of clothing are phrases I rarely ever heard or used.
Also: Clothes is a collective noun. It's always plural and usually (but not always) used when there is a mixture of several different types of clothes: skirts, pants, socks, etc.
If there is a pile of several socks -- and only socks -- on my chair, I would more likely say "there are socks on the chair" instead of "there are clothes on the chair." Clothes would still be correct, but we are not likely to use it in a case where all the items of clothing are of the same type.
But, if there are shirts and socks and pants, then I would probably say "there are clothes on the chair."
Well, Webdunce, I understand what you want to say. But, take into account that there has to be a way to say: a piece of (clothing). I do not understand why this expression is strange for you.
Then, the expression "two pieces of clothing" would be correct, wouldn't it?. There are two pieces of clothing on the chair.
Is "there has to be" a correct expression?. there has to be = tiene que haber.
Well, perhaps it is regional, Nila. But in the southeastern USA, I don't remember ever using "piece of clothing" my entire life.
Here where I live, "piece" is used for a part of a whole thing that is all the same -- like, "piece of pie" or "piece of meat." You must break off or cut off the piece. Before you do that, it is part of the whole. So, to say a "piece of clothing" sounds like you tore a shirt or a dress or something into parts and are now referring to one of the torn-off parts.
But, there are 3 English speakers disagreeing with me in this very thread, so, I must believe that in other areas it is acceptable to say "piece of clothing" -- though it sounds quite funny to me.
To me, "article of clothing" has a formal feel to it, while "item of clothing" would be the phrase I'd use in everyday speech.
However, I must say that, where I live, it would be very rare to say "item of clothing" at all unless I had trouble identifying what type of clothing it was (if it were far away, very crumpled up, or in a box or something like that). Again, where I live, we usually identify single items of clothing by their specific name: shirt, blouse, pair of pants, or whatever.
But, because Eddy and Izanoni agree with your usage, then I suppose it is okay to say "piece of clothing" like you want to do. Also, where I live, people would understand you; although, it could cause a slight misunderstanding at first because it sounds like perhaps you are referring to a piece of torn-off clothing. But, if you handed me a shirt and said, "This is a nice piece of clothing," I would understand you, but it would sound funny to me.
You are definitely right about how the verb changes. "Piece of clothing" would take a singular verb.
Also, yes, "there has to be" is correct, and you used it correctly. It can also be said this way: "there must be." They are equal phrases and we would use one as often as we use the other.
Well, Webdunce, I understand what you want to say. But, take into account that there has to be a way to say: a piece of (clothing). I do not understand why this expression is strange for you.
Then, the expression "two pieces of clothing" would be correct, wouldn't it?. There are two pieces of clothing on the chair.
Is "there has to be" a correct expression?. there has to be = tiene que haber.
"you can't go outside and play until each and every piece of clothing is picked up off of this floor."<
I like that one, I think we're all on the same page here. It's all about context. ( Isn't it always?)
Hi Webdunce,
To me, "article of clothing" has a formal feel to it, while "item of clothing" would be the phrase I'd use in everyday speech.
Well, perhaps it is regional, Nila. But in the southeastern USA, I don't remember ever using "piece of clothing" my entire life.
I want to clear up some confusion regarding my earlier post. In my original post, I was focusing more on Nila's use of the word "clothes" in reference to singular versus plural as this was the original source of her confusion.
After reading Yesero's comments regarding the use of the piece/article/item, I commented by saying:
I agree...if I were writing, I would probably use "article" or "item" of clothing, but in every day speech I would probably say "piece" of clothing or simply "clothes" or "some clothes"
For example:
1). I left a few clothes on the floor
2). I left a few pieces of clothing on the floor.
3). I left a few articles of clothing on the floor.
4). I left a few items of clothing on the floor.
I want to say that I think we are probably closer in opinions as to the choice of word usage than you might think. I think that if I were to speak these words (without actually naming the specific articles of clothing) that 9 times out of ten I would probably use number 1 above.
I also agree that "piece" of clothing can be ambiguous without context, and I had originally included mention of this in my original posting, but I went back and edited it out because it did not pertain to the original more specific question of verb tense. However, I have heard the word "piece" be used like this before such as:
"Hey, I left a couple of pieces of clothing at your house."
I would not think that someone was referring to actual shreds of clothing in this context, but again, this could probably also be said:
I left some clothes at your house.
I think that pieces (as well as articles and items), in this context, allows you to be more specific as to the number items actually left behind. If I were writing, however, each option above would be open to me, and I would not feel strange reading or writing any of the choices listed above (1-4).
You must break off or cut off the piece. Before you do that, it is part of the whole. So, to say a "piece of clothing" sounds like you tore a shirt or a dress or something into parts and are now referring to one of the torn-off parts.
I don't disagree with this idea either, but it all depends on what the original whole is referring to. If I were to say "a piece of my shirt" or "the dog ripped my clothes to shreds, and I found pieces of my clothing all over the neighborhood" then it would be obvious that the "piece" was referring to the original article of clothing (the shirt) or the individual items of clothing that the dog had gotten a hold of. On the other hand, the original whole could have been comprised of clothing from your wardrobe or you drawer, so that you might say: "When I came home someone had dumped out all my drawers and pieces of clothing were strewn about the floor." Again, this could be ambiguous as it is not clear whether the person is speaking about pieces torn off of the clothing itself or just various articles of clothing. This is why I said that it would probably lend itself better to writing to use "articles" or "items." If I were speaking to someone in who was in the room with me, however, and we could both actually see the items of clothing that we were referring to then the ambiguity of the statement disappears within the context of the situation. For example if my son has to clean his room, and his idea of a clean room differs from mine, he might think that he is finished, and then I would have to call him into his room and point to all of the clothes that he had left on the floor and say, "you can't go outside and play until each and every piece of clothing is picked up off of this floor." Saying it like this makes the statement more emphatic (places more emphasis on the fact that every piece has to be picked up) than if I were to say "you can't go outside until all of your clothes are picked up." The use of piece in this context also emphasizes (to me at least) the disarray or disorder. In this case, I suppose each "piece" represents a part (or slice if you will) of the "whole" mess. To be even more emphatic (only in this case) you could also probably use the word "stitch" to say, "You have to pick up every stitch of clothing," but this word would probably not be as interchangeable in other contexts.
Again, I just want to reiterate that the point that you make that the word "piece" must refer to some whole is valid (at least in my opinion), it really just depends on what the "whole" is referring to. For example, if my 2 year old were to dump an entire sheaf of paper on the floor, I couldn't expect him to pick up all that paper, so I would have to pick up each piece of paper. This use of piece does not imply that the individual pieces have been torn in any way, just that they represent the entire whole of papers that were dumped out. I hope that this clarifies things, and I hope that I have provided some examples that we can agree on. If not, I am pretty sure that it is likely due more to my lack of ability in regards to exposition than to any regional difference in usage (I live in Southeast Texas, but some of my earlier life living in Florida)
