To what extent are countability distinctions subject to systematic semantic variation? Could there be a language with no countability distinctions—in particular, one where all nouns are count? I argue that the answer is no: even in a language where all NPs have the core morphosyntactic properties of English count NPs, such as combining with numerals directly and showing singular/plural contrasts, countability distinctions still emerge on close inspection. I divide these distinctions into those related to sums (cumulativity) and those related to parts (divisiveness, atomicity, and related notions). In the Sahaptian language Nez Perce, evidence can be found for both types of distinction, in spite of the absence of anything like a traditional mass–count division in noun morphosyntax. I propose an extension of the Nez Perce analysis to Yudja (Tupí), analyzed by Lima (The grammar of individuation and counting, 2014) as lacking any countability distinctions. More generally, I suggest that at least one countability distinction may be universal and that languages without any countability distinctions may be unlearnable.

中文翻译：

---

可数性区别和语义变异

可数性区分在多大程度上受到系统语义变化的影响？是否有一种语言没有可数性的区别，特别是所有名词都被数过的语言？我认为答案是否定的：即使在所有NP都具有英语计数NP的核心形态句法特性的语言中，例如直接与数字组合并显示单数/复数的对比，在仔细检查时仍会发现可数性差异。我将这些区分分为与总和（累积性）和与部分有关的（区分性，原子性和相关概念）。在Sahaptian语言Nez Perce中，尽管没有像名词形态语法那样的传统质量计数除法之类的东西，也可以找到两种区分的证据。我建议将内兹珀斯人的分析扩展到尤达（图皮），个性化和计数语法，2014年）缺乏可数性差异。更笼统地说，我建议至少一个可数性区分可能是通用的，而没有任何可数性区分的语言可能是不可学习的。