Talk:cosmic microwave background
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Theknightwho in topic Proper vs. mass noun
Proper vs. mass noun[edit]
@Theknightwho: when reverting me for the latest time, you said that it was because I "intentionally made it read like a proper noun, not a mass noun". Assuming that it's because of me readding the leading "the" (because something reading as a proper noun rather than a mass noun because some words in the definition are linked which previously weren't would be utterly ridiculous), I'm still not seeing how that addition does anything other than make the sentence more grammatical; lots and lots of other mass nouns have a leading "the" (or sometimes "a"/"an") in their definitions (air, sense 1: "The substance constituting Earth's atmosphere..."; water, sense 1: "A substance (of molecular formula H2O)..."; subsense 1 of sense 1: "The liquid form of this substance..."; beef, sense 1: "The meat from a cow...", etc., etc., etc.). Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 20:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Proper vs. mass noun" is a curious heading here, because proper and mass noun are not opposites! There are countable and uncountable (mass) nouns; and there are proper and common nouns. You can have countable proper, uncountable proper, countable common, and uncountable common. I think your confusion relates to conflating these two areas. Equinox ◑ 20:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Common nouns can be countable or uncountable, but countability is not a meaningful property for proper nouns (since they aren't things that can be measured or counted). Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 22:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia article begins by talking about "the cosmic microwave background", and in this case we wouldn't talk about "some background" or "an amount of background"; it's the singular thing. Thus evidently countable. Equinox ◑ 20:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Equinox "The" isn't a singular article; it's number-neutral, being usable for singular countables ("the necklace"), plural countables ("the onions"), and uncountables ("the bread"). Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 22:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed - I find that term odd to parse, but if that's how it's used then it is clearly not correct to treat it as uncountable. If it's a specific thing, what prevents it from being a proper noun? It feels much more natural to treat it as one if we abbreviate it to CMB, but that shouldn't be the defining thing. Theknightwho (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho The thing that prevents it from being a proper noun is that it's possible to use it countably under unusual circumstances (for instance, "the cosmic microwave backgrounds of these three universes should differ in ways reflecting blah blah blah"), and proper nouns (which refer to individual specific things) can't be countable. In the rare use case just mentioned, "cosmic microwave background" is countable; in the usual use case, when multiple universes don't come into play, it's not countable. Just like with anything else that's usually uncountable but becomes countable when referring to different types or groups of whatever-it-is in their entireties (bread is usually uncountable, but becomes countable when comparing different types of bread; beef is usually uncountable, but becomes countable when, say, comparing sirloin to round to chuck; cosmic microwave background is usually uncountable, but becomes countable when comparing multiple universes). Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 22:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Whoop whoop pull up No, that doesn’t prevent it being a proper noun, because I can use names countably as well. You’re also (still) ignoring that it is not a mass noun. Theknightwho (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- It does prevent it from being a proper noun, because proper nouns cannot be used countably. While you certainly can say things like "two Maxes" or "five Janets", those involve the names involved being used as common nouns (i.e., "two [people named Max]" or "five [people named Janet]", respectively); the proper-noun forms are not countable. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 08:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Whoop whoop pull up “The Obamas”. Proper nouns don’t magically become nouns just because they’re used countably.
- At this point, you’re insisting that proper nouns which can be counted are uncountable nouns or common nouns based on nothing but gut feeling. It’s complete nonsense, and not coherent. Theknightwho (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- It does prevent it from being a proper noun, because proper nouns cannot be used countably. While you certainly can say things like "two Maxes" or "five Janets", those involve the names involved being used as common nouns (i.e., "two [people named Max]" or "five [people named Janet]", respectively); the proper-noun forms are not countable. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 08:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Whoop whoop pull up No, that doesn’t prevent it being a proper noun, because I can use names countably as well. You’re also (still) ignoring that it is not a mass noun. Theknightwho (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho The thing that prevents it from being a proper noun is that it's possible to use it countably under unusual circumstances (for instance, "the cosmic microwave backgrounds of these three universes should differ in ways reflecting blah blah blah"), and proper nouns (which refer to individual specific things) can't be countable. In the rare use case just mentioned, "cosmic microwave background" is countable; in the usual use case, when multiple universes don't come into play, it's not countable. Just like with anything else that's usually uncountable but becomes countable when referring to different types or groups of whatever-it-is in their entireties (bread is usually uncountable, but becomes countable when comparing different types of bread; beef is usually uncountable, but becomes countable when, say, comparing sirloin to round to chuck; cosmic microwave background is usually uncountable, but becomes countable when comparing multiple universes). Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 22:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia article begins by talking about "the cosmic microwave background", and in this case we wouldn't talk about "some background" or "an amount of background"; it's the singular thing. Thus evidently countable. Equinox ◑ 20:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Whoop whoop pull up You said yourself that it isn't quantifiable. All of your examples are. Whether or not it's countable, it refers to one thing. Theknightwho (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho And regardless of whether it's countable or not, the definition sentence is ungrammatical without the leading "the". Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 22:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)