Are these examples of bad Taiwan-English habits, or are they perhaps acceptable English in the US or somewhere?
Candies
Fruits
These shoudl be uncoutnable nouns. ‘Do you have any candy?’ ‘I don’t eat enough fruit and vegetables’.
I’ve always assumed the Taiwanese ‘He gave me some candies’ and ‘fruits and vegetables’ to just be bad English, but I’ve been coming across it (in textbooks) more and more.
Is this perhaps acceptable ‘American English’?
Brian
not generally used that way in the us, with the exception of some special contexts like “fruits and vegetables” “fine chocolate candies” written by the manufacturer on the box that i would assume were common to English as a whole
whoops, missed that you used that very example. that’s a common phrase in the us, you’ll hear “fruits” as a catchall for different kinds of fruit, you might also hear “tropical fruits” for example. but no one would say “I want to eat some fruits”.
webster’s
[quote]Main Entry: 1can
It’s like “wines” and “cheeses” - the plural of many uncountable nouns refers to many types of the item, rather than many items. The same is true with “beers”, but “beers” can mean “orders of beer”, as in “three beers, please.”
Some uncountable nouns can never be pluralized: “furniture”, “information”, etc.
“u” and “non-u” usage, i.e. it is poor taste to say ‘fruits’ and ‘candies’ just as one orders gins and tonic for the Governors General not gin and tonics for the Governor Generals
I don’t think anyone has to go to court over this! 
I have been told by some North Americans candies and fruits are acceptable English but then these people say “Anyways”. Personally as a New Zealander I do what the icon does whenever I hear these phrases. Let’s face it you would say sweets or lollies back home in NZ.
i correct my students when they say these, unless it happens to be in special contexts, which is not likely. in nyc anyway candy and fruit are the normal usage.
Attorneys general, mothers-in-law, sure. But “gins and tonic”? I don’t get that one.
“Fruits” and “candies” are okay in certain contexts, as is “fishes,” but I recall them being improperly used by many of my students in Taiwan.
If ‘fruits’ can be a derogatory term (the use of which I of course denounce!) for our gay friends, what could ‘candies’ be in that context?? 
As for “gins and tonic”, well, I’m not an English teacher, not even a native speaker, but isn’t “Gin and Tonic” a standing term which is pluralised by adding an ‘s’ to its entirety, er, so to say? And wouldn’t any sensible person who had the misfortune of having to serve drinks to more than one Governor General address them/refer to them as “gentlemen” … ?? And shouldn’t Governor-General be hyphenated anyway???
Hmm, that’s useful.
My conclusions:
Generally should not be countable nouns.
Can sometimes be pluralised int he way ‘wines and cheeses’ can.
Myabe ‘candies’ is acceptable.
Brian
Maybe? Of course it is.
The thing that gets me is the rampant misuse of “less” and “fewer.”
…as in:
“President Chen won re-election by less than 30,000 votes.” (X)
“President Chen won re-election by fewer than 30,000 votes.” (O)
It’s amazing how many native English speakers screw this up.
[quote=“Xpet”]If ‘fruits’ can be a derogatory term (the use of which I of course denounce!) for our gay friends, what could ‘candies’ be in that context??
As for “gins and tonic”, well, I’m not an English teacher, not even a native speaker, but isn’t “Gin and Tonic” a standing term which is pluralised by adding an ‘s’ to its entirety, er, so to say? And wouldn’t any sensible person who had the misfortune of having to serve drinks to more than one Governor General address them/refer to them as “gentlemen” … ?? And shouldn’t Governor-General be hyphenated anyway???[/quote]
Some such terms do; others don’t, as I recall: mothers-in-law, attorneys at law, notaries public, etc. And let’s not forget passersby!
Yes (although it would not be capped unless it was part of a proper name), as should secretary-general, but not attorney general.
descriptive grammarians tend to describe what people are actually saying, whereas prescriptive grammarians will tell you what to say.
what can i say? language changes, and is ever in flux. the rules of today might well be different tomorrow, or the next day. and rules for “permissability” in spoken grammar and written grammar are certainly not 100% the same. so what do you teach?
[quote]descriptive grammarians tend to describe what people are actually saying, whereas prescriptive grammarians will tell you what to say.
[/quote]
Yes, but I have to becareful about taking the way Taiwanese speak English and saying “well that’s the way everyone says it - it must be OK”
[quote=“xtrain_01”]descriptive grammarians tend to describe what people are actually saying, whereas prescriptive grammarians will tell you what to say.
what can I say? language changes, and is ever in flux. the rules of today might well be different tomorrow, or the next day.[/quote]
Careful. I’ve heard Taiwanese people use this idea as a defense for their atrocious grammar, citing numberous instances on Google where other non-native speakers have made the same error.
point of clarification:
an attempt to describe the regular structures of the language as it is used.
thus, not just anything that comes outta someone’s mouth can be included, whether they be native speaker or NNS.
of course, what’s regular?
[quote=“Chris”]It’s like “wines” and “cheeses” - the plural of many uncountable nouns refers to many types of the item, rather than many items. The same is true with “beers”, but “beers” can mean “orders of beer”, as in “three beers, please.”
Some uncountable nouns can never be pluralized: “furniture”, “information”, etc.[/quote]
Chris just answered your question! That’s that. Case closed.
And I agree with xtrain_01 - the people of Taiwan more want the spoken English, as opposed to proper grammar and syntax in the written language.
And you do all realize that most of the time, someone who studied English very hard as a second language is MUCH more capable in terms of vocabulary, grammar, etc., than is a native speaker? Let’s face it - native speakers are native speakers, and get very lazy about their own language. English also varies from country to country. It varies GREATLY.
Also, anyone here see the Simpsons episode where Lisa makes Grammarbot? Whatever she says, he’ll correct the grammar if she’s mistaken. So then she says something which is a sentence fragment, and Grammarbot says, “Sentence fragment,” and Lisa’s like, “‘Sentence fragment,’ is also a sentence fragment,” - and the robot blows up?! Hahaha…
Let’s just not nitpick the Taiwanese’ (Damn, how do you pluralize the word Taiwanese?! For example, Canadians’) grammar. It’s best just to correct them on obvious mistakes, rather than semiotics.
Forgot to say, I did.
Nitpicking everything, we are.
shawn_c wrote:
“pluralized”?
Yes, I know it is a word, but better might be:
Some uncountable nouns can never be plural:…
…and don’t forget the odd collective nouns:
a “pyrus” of apples
a “business” of ferrets
a “convocation” of eagles
and one of my favorites, a “murder of crows.”