Number, Amount (Word Usage)

Number, Amount

Most of the errors mentioned so far in this series are either so subtle that we don't often notice them in speech (like misuses of "who"), or absolutely unnoticeable in speech so that we can only see them in writing (like the commonly confused homonyms "to," "too," and "two.") However, some errors are easily noticeable in both speech and print, and the confusion between the correct uses of the words "number" and "amount" happens so often in so many diverse media that I don't remember going a day without hearing such a misuse since I learned the rule some time in high school. I feel at this point I must post a warning to anyone who wishes to read further: if you do not want your great days to be made a little darker, and your darker days to be made absolutely black, do not continue reading. Once you know this rule, you can never unremember it, and you will hear it so often that you may just be driven slowly insane, feeling like you are the only one who knows the truth, alone in a world gone mad.

All melodramatics aside, reputable newspapers and respected major networks like ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and even the Canadian CBC make this error regularly in their nation-wide newscasts, the programs which are supposed to be standard English's last stronghold in the world of television. Are you guilty of this error? Read the following sentence and decide for yourself if it is right or wrong, as well as your reasons why: "The amount of refugees fleeing the tiny war-torn country is staggering." If you guessed that this sentence was right, you are wrong, but you are certainly not alone.

The reason this sentence is not technically correct is that it uses the word "amount" where the word "number" is actually correct. The following two sentences show each used in its proper place:

"The amount of water flowing out of the tiny war-torn country is staggering."
"The number of refugees fleeing the tiny war-torn country is staggering."

Notice that these sentences are similar to each other and to the incorrect example sentence above, but they have an essential difference in the subject. In the sentence featuring water, the word "amount" is properly used to describe its magnitude, whereas in the sentences using refugees, "number" is the proper word. The difference is imperceptible if you don't know the rule, but the distinction rests on the difference between count and non-count nouns.

A count noun is one that, well, can be counted. Refugees, regardless of their numbers, are entities that can be counted, and even if we have no idea of the precise number referred to in the sentence, that fact that they can be counted is all that matters. Most count nouns also end in an "s" in the plural, as is the case above, and so this is an excellent hint that "number" should be used rather than "amount."

Non-count nouns, on the other hand, as you would expect cannot be counted. They can be measured, compared, and described in many ways, but counting isn't a concept that even makes sense when applied to them. After all, what would it mean to count water? Another way to identify a non-count noun is to employ the opposite of the "s" plural ending rule mentioned above. Try adding an "s" to the plural of a non-count noun, and you will quickly see that it makes no sense. After all, what would it mean to have many waters, or a number of dirts? Do not, however, fall victim to this "s" shortcut, for there are some count nouns which have odd plurals that do not include an "s," like "deer" and "oxen." Use the final "s" as a hint, but remember, if you can count it, use "number," and if not, use "amount."