Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

For example:

  1. This is some type of mushroom.

  2. This is some kind of mushroom.

  3. There are different types of books

  4. There are different kinds of books

I think that there are all valid sentences but somehow I have the impression that a type is a bigger group than a kind.

Is this correct?

share|improve this question

4 Answers 4

up vote 11 down vote accepted

In short, type is used to differentiate one group from the rest and kind is used to link an individual to a group. They are sometimes interchangeable, but not always.

Type refers to clearly distinguishing and essential characteristics or traits shared by members of a group. Its root meaning is "impression."

O+ is the most common blood type in the United States of America.

To mankind in general Macbeth and Lady Macbeth stand out as the supreme type of all that a host and hostess should not be — Max Beerbohm.

Kind, on the other hand, usually refers to a group trait that is shared innately by the members (see "mankind" above). Its root meaning is "race" or "offspring."

The true test of civilization is, not the census, nor the size of the cities, nor the crops, but the kind of man that the country turns out — Ralph Waldo Emerson.

The rule which forbids ending a sentence with a preposition is the kind of nonsense up with which I will not put" — misattributed to Winston Churchill.

Interchangeable use:

She's not that kind/type of person. She is not nasty. She's very nice.

See examples below:

She's not my type. (=I'm attracted to a different kind of girl)

She's not your kind. (=She's a fundamentally different sort of person)

See link1 and link2.

share|improve this answer
    
It is subtle, but you shed some light on the topic, so thanks! –  PhiLho Mar 28 '13 at 12:02
    
What do you mean by "Its root meaning is impression"? Could you elaborate? –  Gigili Jul 20 '13 at 10:32

I'm afraid it's rather nebulous and very context dependent. Both can be very general or very specific depending on what you're talking about. For this kind (or type) of general purpose use you can regard them as equivalent.

share|improve this answer

I'm not a native speaker, but to me it looks like this:

  • type — if the thing can be further subdivided, into subtypes or kinds;
  • kind — if there is no further subdivision.

Came to this conclusion after reading this page on Yahoo Answers.

share|improve this answer
    
At first I thought you might be on to something, but I don’t know that this is true. Consider: A human is a kind of primate, a primate is a kind of mammal, a mammal is a kind of chordate, a chordate is a kind of animal, an animal is a kind of eukaryote. –  tchrist Mar 17 '13 at 12:50
2  
@tchrist Yes, you're right, this obviously breaks my theory, though it can still be useful, e.g. when in need of a naming convention in code (my primary interest in the topic). –  Sea Coast of Tibet Mar 18 '13 at 19:20

I always understood type to refer to typology where there is an antitype–type representation. Kind is a grouping by classification.

share|improve this answer
    
If only you could use initial capitals, capitalized the FPP, included a justification, cited strong supporting references and argued convincingly for your case, this could have been a great answer, perhaps. –  Kris Jan 11 at 6:07

protected by RegDwigнt Jan 11 at 14:10

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.