Talk:contents

Is not the plural

I maintain that "contents" is not the plural of "content".

We don't say "I only have one content" ("content" is uncountable). Neither do we say "There are only three contents left."

Furthermore, "contents" is not a plural, but a collective noun, meaning "that which is contained", and may refer to none, one, or many objects, or to some uncountable quantity. This is the sense in which it is used in both "Table of Contents", and "Empty the contents of your pockets".

If you don't agree, can you provide explanation, or examples of how the plural of "content" or singular of "contents" could be used?

plural and singular

This is messier than most of the cases of words that have this kind of issue. In many other cases it is very easy to demonstrate that a word that someone thinks can't form a plural actually can. "Marxisms" and "uniquenesses" are actually used and readily locatable in use in books using book.google.com.

This is harder because the meanings of content that are uncountable are not always very different from the meanings that are countable.

1. I have added under Etymology 2 the other meaning of content: "contentment", "satisfaction", which is pronounced differently. "I can play around on Wiktionary to my heart's content." "We can play around together on Wiktionary to our hearts' contents."
2. As to the senses in Etymology 1:
   1. (that which is contained): is shown as uncountable.
   2. (subject matter): "He merged the contents of the two short stories and produced a novel."
   3. (amount contained): "The alcohol content is 8 ounces. The water content is 9 ounces. Combining the contents yields 16 ounces of 100-proof liquor."

Do these make sense? I don't think that I have confounded the plural-only senses with the singular-and-plural senses, but they are close. DCDuring TALK 14:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if you like this kind of thing or other aspects of words and language, you should think about becoming a registered user. DCDuring TALK 14:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Singular despite declaring "not used in singular form"

Form "3." is somewhat confusing (though it may be strictly correct). It starts out as "plural only; not used in singular form", but then the sample sentence ends with "dig in to the content itself." (singular).

Full: 3. (plural only; not used in singular form) A table of contents, a list of chapters, etc. in a book, and the page numbers on which they start.

   I always start a book by reading the dustjacket and the contents before I really dig in to the content itself.

Couldn't the sample sentence be changed to not use "content"?

--Mortense 18:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)