I tend to use “content” for material. I only use “contents” for what is in a container.
What are the contents of the box?
What kind of content will you contribute to LingQ?
What do native speakers think?
Is my usage regional?
That makes sense to me. I use those words in the same way, and I don’t know that it’s a regional usage.
Why do you ask?
I have read that both “content” and “contents” may be used, but I’ve noticed that non-native speakers (even very good non-native writers) have trouble using “content” and “contents”. It makes me wonder if some speakers of British English would say “See my contents in the LingQ library.” To my ear, this sounds slightly unusual, yet I saw a translator on another site who used “contents” in a similar way, I think.
My old Concise Oxford Dictionary has the following entry for content: 1. (pl.) ~s of, what is contained in (vessel etc, book, document); (table of) ~s , summary of subject-matter of book. 2. Capacity (of vessel), volume (of solid). 3. (sing. only) Constituent elements of a conception; substance (of cognition, art, etc) opp. form; amount contained or yielded (sugar content).
I cannot imagine that anyone would say “my contents” in any context; but then I have made no contributions to the library … The contents of the LingQ threads tend to be interesting. The quality of content as opposed to its form is what counts.
Current usage seems to go the way you apply the words.
I have had very similar question to that of Loulex many times while studying English.
“I have difficulty with decision”
“Will I have any difficulties with customs?”
I think that for natives it must be so obvious that they wouldn’t have any difficulties ( difficulty? ) differentiating these two. How interesting it is to know each language has its own sense.
The issue is similar to a previous thread about someone vs somebody. First, I can’t think of any cases where both words and their subject-verb agreements are not interchangeable grammatically (please let me know if there are). This is because their use is largely based on the how transitive, or how foregrounded and concrete the speaker wants to make the word. It is a speaker decision. The countable versions are more transitive.
What is transitivity? I heard once that cats are able to see in concrete detail only what is in motion . All the background is a blur until it too starts to move. WHen looked at in a non-self-consciously poetic manner, sentences often present a blur with a streak of motion. That streak is transitivity. Meow.
For the practical minded, it is a good suggestion to situate the plural nouns (difficulties" ets when you are introducing a topic, since the brain likes to have concrete detail to start, and generalise from that.
(difficulties" ets > (“difficulties”,“contents” etc)
＠dooo、
Thank you so much for giving me such a helpful explanation. I think I LingQ membership is too inexpensive! Because no other place would give me a chance to talk about these kinds of things with a native speaker of English.
Today I will study about transitivity. I think it will take me much time to understand it fully, though.
Thanks
“talk about these kinds of things with a native speaker of English.”
Being a ‘native’ speaker really is a DISadvantage for this kind of thing. And my main point is: it is more useful just to absorb correct examples and not worry about explanations.
Being a ‘native’ speaker really is a DISadvantage for this kind of thing. And my main point is: it is more useful just to absorb correct examples and not worry about explanations.
As a native speaker of Japanese I think I understand what you say: I would think the same way like you and I would suggest the same thing to a learner of Japanese if I were asked about seemingly obvious (at least for me )questions.
Yet thinking one word and its usage very deeply could sometimes shed light on how speakers of a particular language think. Besides, knowing native speakers view points like yours is always interesting and precious to me. I always love to hear from all of you about your viewpoints about your own language. Many thanks.
"I would suggest the same thing to a learner of Japanese if I were asked about seemingly obvious (at least for me )questions. " The answers (IE Why “diffculty” and not “difficulties” etc) to these questions are not obvious at all… least of all to native speakers, I think.
I am glad these things interest you. To read, in the target language, about things that interest you is a great way to learn that language. But from a language learning point of view, it is just as useful to read about gardening as about linguistics.
I am not sure I agree with you that speakers of a particular language think in particular ways due to the specific usages of that language.
@dooo,
Reading your post, I realized my English is not precise enough to express my own opinion!!
“seemingly obvious” doesn’t mean “every native can explain every word or its usage grammatically”. Rather, what I meant by “seemingly obvious” is that every word and usage is deeply embedded into native speaker’s mind that we usually miss the chance to think of them objectively. This is why it is very difficult for me to explain Japanese to foreign people.
By the way as I am writing this post, I started to worry again if I am explaining my feeling to you properly…
it is just as useful to read about gardening as about linguistics.
This is very true. I am just not so interested in gardening. We can learn foreign languages from every thing.
I am not sure I agree with you that speakers of a particular language think in particular ways due to the specific usages of that language.
I think at least the specific usages of that language should be the reflection of the people’s thought, but I am not sure whether people with one language( e.g. English) really think differently from people with the other language( e.g.Japanese ). Sorry, it must be another issue.
I think I should pay more to LingQ to be given the opportunity like this.