Why is “toast” uncountable?

Question

This is ‘English’ toast

And this is some posh toast

Pain Quotidien offers rye, walnut and sourdough toast at £2.95 for two slices, while Gail’s bakery chain, which opened its first café in 2005 and now has 15 branches and stocks Waitrose, charges £2.50 for two slices of toast.
_{The Telegraph}

And this is Italian toast. It's really a toast sandwich but Italians call it a tost. Italians rarely eat slices of toast with butter or jam, and if you ask a waiter or the person serving behind the counter for some "toast", that's what you'll get.
_{^{Further evidence here.}}

_{Toast: culatello cotto, crema di fontina valdostana. (Toast: culatello cooked ham, Fontina cream cheese.) Certamente non un toast qualunque. (Definitely not ‘an’ everyday toast)}

Now the word toast is uncountable (aka mass noun), which means we don't use the indefinite article ‘a’ or add the suffix -s . But if we look at the first image, although it is clearly "one toast" that phrase is considered ungrammatical. Instead in English we say and write: “one piece of toast” or “a slice of toast”. The second image shows "two toasts", but we say “two pieces (or slices) of toast”.

Oxford Dictionaries provide this example:

My breakfast is always the same: two pieces of brown toast with slices of banana on top, a cup of tea and an apple juice.

Note that although apple juice is generally considered uncountable, in this instance it's not. That's because we think of an apple juice being contained in a glass, cup, box or carton; and containers are countable. However, if we were to spill the apple juice on the surface of a table, we might say: “Oh! I've spilt some apple juice” And finally, we call the food toast, and not ‘two toasted/browned pieces of bread’.

My question is very simple.

• Why is toast uncountable?

Bonus: The song Toast sung (spoken) by the British pop band, Streetband, in 1978.

Answer 1

The word toast in the sense of "toasted bread" is an English coinage from the early 15th century and originally referred to bread that was added to wine or ale for flavour (and possibly to soak up the dregs). In that context, a mass noun made more sense than a countable one, since toast didn't come in slices. It was only in the 17th century that toast started being eaten on its own with a spread.

The word toast in other languages meanwhile (such as Italian) is a modern borrowing, and so is more likely to be countable.

---

Update: a bit more investigation shows that the situation is more complicated than I suggested above. Early examples in fact sometimes use toast as a countable noun, despite referring to a piece of dipped toast: for example "Go fetch me a quart of sack, put a toast in it" from The Merry Wives of Windsor (1602). I'm not sure when it became exclusively uncountable.

Answer 2

Its uncountable for the same reason bread is uncountable. You commonly get bread (or toasted bread) in slices for convenience of eating, and its the slice that matters there as a quantifiable item. If you want to refer to the unsliced bread, then you still have to quantify it in some way - either as loaves or as weight.

So "a toast" (when referring to bread) is meaningless. A slice of toast makes sense as you can tell how much you're referring to.

Sometimes though, you get shortened versions of what is meant - "an apple juice" is shortened form of "a portion of" or "a glass of" apple juice. For some reason we don't use toast in the same way (though note, sometimes we do say "one tea" meaning "one standard container full of tea" (ie a mug, cup or pot).

It works for many other items - eg concrete ("A slab of" or "a tonne of" is good, "a concrete", not so).

Answer 3

Original 2015 post

I think your definition of toast is equivalent to toast sandwich. When I put jam or cheese onto toast I don't call the whole thing toast, just the part that was originally bread. In fact I call it jam and toast or cheese on toast. To me, your pictures show slices of toast with things on them, except for the Italian toast which is a sandwich made with toast instead of bread.

I think of toast as the material making up the slice (or even chunk) of bread. If you call any piece of toast a toast what happens when you cut it in half? Do you have two toasts or two half toasts? If you cut an apple in half you quite definitely have two half apples. If you cut bread you don't increase its number, you just make pieces (and a mess). The same goes for apple juice. If you divide it in any way, you still describe each division as apple juice because it is made of apple juice. Uncountable nouns are only counted in measures. The measure of apple juice might be millilitres, the measure of bread might be pieces and the measure of toast might be slices.

2018 EDIT

I don't think anyone would say a slice of a toast, which indicates that toast is being used uncountably. In informal language, you can have a water, a beer, etc. Informal language allows using uncountable nouns countably. In formal language, one must say a glass of water, a bottle of beer, etc. Likewise, in formal language you can't have a toast, only a slice of toast, etc.

So the answer is: toast is uncountable in formal language and it is acceptable to use it countably in informal language.

Answer 4

In my opinion the premise is simply wrong. It may be less common, it may be not posh, but it exists. A brief web search gave a few hits:

• "50 Toasts". If that is not counting I don't know what is;
• "21 Ideas For Energy-Boosting Breakfast Toasts";
• "Melty onion toasts" from the honorable BBC;
• "Two toasts", i.e. slices of toasted bread, in a picture.

Some (but not all) of the examples may be considered shorthand for "types of toast", but I'd not consider that a counter argument at all, actually.

Many "uncountable" words are in all reality very well countable and occur in plural form. True, the plural may actually mean different kinds of the substance as in "unlike many other rubbers which can often become brittle...". But if we talk about a substance, i.e a type of matter, then different types of that (doughs, rubbers, concretes) are the proper plural! That we could substitute "rubbers" with "types of rubber" is notwithstanding (rubber describes a type of matter, after all). We could also substitute "noses" with "different examples for nose". A baby will think nose is a concept like hunger and doesn't have a plural, until it detects more of them when it learns to recognize faces. A Texan may think there is only one snow until he talks to an eskimo¹.

The fuzziness of our natural languages blurs the lines between types of an uncountable substance and several items made of that substance. We may agree that bread is generally uncountable, but if you just indicate your general wish to buy bread, a baker may ask "which one of our breads?", pointing to a shelf full of bread variations. Each loaf stands for a variety, but the question could be answered by pointing to a specific loaf and saying "this one" (instead of "the sourdough without seeds"). Similar scenarios are conceivable for water in a restaurant offering several brands of mineral water.

At other times concrete things are named after the substance of which they consist. This happens with iron or stone. Or cake. Or bread: "The bakery offers a nice selection of breads and pastries.". Or toast, as far as I am concerned. The individual item consisting of toast is "a toast", and there may even be two of them, as in the picture.

---

_{¹I know. But it is such a nice example.}

Answer 5

My question is very simple.

Why is toast uncountable?

I'm actually not sure it is simple, or rather if it is simple then it admits a very simple answer:

Toast is uncountable, because in English the word "toast" refers to the substance of which the objects depicted consist, but it does not denote the objects themselves.

Except that occasionally it would be used to denote the objects. For example, of those pictures of English menu items, one might perhaps say "four toasts for table seven!", and it would mean either four single-slices or four two-slice servings according to which one is actually on the menu. Naturally one wouldn't do this if it was ambiguous in a particular establishment: it's jargon). In those uses it is countable in English, but it's a fairly standard formation for almost any mass noun that's sold (or handled at home) in specific quantities: "serving(s) of X -> X(s)". So probably not very interesting.

Now, there's a less simple question:

Why is it that, in English, we have a single word for the substance of those objects, but we most commonly don't use a single word for the objects and instead refer to them as "slices of toast" or "pieces of toast"?

To which I don't know the answer, but if you're not asking that less simple thing, then I think a lot of the other answers here are going further than you need! One could speculate (and I don't know if this is correct or not, the early examples in OED suggest that it's irrelevant) that it's because etymologically, "toast" is some kind of contraction of "toasted bread". But it would still be necessary somehow to explain why the mass noun currently is for the most part resisting being used for the object. In general it is no small task to explain why a particular apparently-logical usage has failed to become common.

Answer 6

Many bread products are treated as uncountable. In my experience, naan, matzo, and pita are often uncountable, even though they all come in countable units. Consider this Ngram, showing that the mass nouns some naan/matzo/pita are much more common than the plurals some naans/matzos/pitas.

This may explain why toast continues to be considered uncountable, even though it comes in countable units.

Why did toast start being uncountable, even though the original use of toast—as pieces of toasted bread intended to be put in wine or other drinks—was countable? I have a theory which is probably unprovable. Originally, toast was considered as the raw material for making toasts, which was done by cutting up a slice of toast and putting the pieces in wine. Thus, slices of dry toast were uncountable, but when you cut it into immersible-size pieces, they became countable. When people started putting butter and jam on slices of dry toast and eating them, they stayed uncountable.

Answer 7

My breakfast includes 'a few slices of toasted bread'.

Unsurprisingly, most of the time people make an ellipsis of this mouthful (!) and ask for 'toast' (a slice or piece of bread browned at the fire (OED)). If I want to specify how much toast I want I say how many pieces/slices.

Even though there is little chance of any confusion as to 'what' food I want toasted (because, unusually for a cooking process, toasting refers to bread, almost exclusively (pace marshmallow lovers)), it is extremely uncommon, even today, to say, "2 toasts please" (with the sense of 'two slices of toast'). This is, perhaps, because the outcome of the widely used ellipsis - toast - is, actually, the process which made it and usually it does not sound right to pluralise processes.

Of course, there is a common context for hearing 'two toasts'. This is when making an order in a cafe/restaurant. But in this case 'toast' is an ellipsis of 'orders of toast'.

Answer 8

The oldest recipe book in English history is The Forme of Cury written in 1390. The word cury is the Middle English term for cookery. Written (or compiled) by the master chefs of King Richard II there is one recipe called tostee, whereby toasted bread is sweetened with a spiced honey and wine sauce.

original text

Take wyne and hony and found it togyder and skym it clene. and seeþ it long, do þerto powdour of gyngur. peper and salt, tost brede and lay the sew þerto. kerue pecys of gyngur and flour it þerwith and messe it forth.

Translation

Take wine and honey and mix it together and skim it clean. And seethe (boil) it for a long time, and add to it powdered ginger, pepper and salt. Toast bread and lay it thereto. Carve pieces of ginger, and flour it therewith, and serve it forth.

In the Middle English Dictionary (1996) by Robert E. Lewis, the plural form tostyes is noted.

The author of the 1425 excerpt was the French physician and surgeon, Guy de Chauliac, whose book Chirurgia Magna was translated from Latin into several different languages, including Middle English.

The dish remained popular in English cuisine for centuries, and even William Shakespeare referred to it in his play The Merry Wives of Windsor, first published in 1602

Go, fetch me a quart of Sacke [sherry], put a tost in't.

Therefore tost was a countable noun in the English language for over two hundred years, and as other users have pointed out, the OED lists toast as being countable. Why and when toast became a mass noun; however, remains unclear.

Sources: British Library and Middle English Dictionary

Answer 9

Because the trail of comments under the question was effectively long, they have been transferred to chat where (probably) no one will ever read or see them again. So in order of appearance, I'll cite the comments which I believe were the most thought-provoking. Apologies to any whose comment/s are not included.

---

Comments

Behind the witty and nerdy comment lies a more serious observation: because toast is made from bread, which is a mass noun, it is therefore a piece of that solid mass form. For the benefit of future visitors, a link to the law of conservation of mass.

1. Because of the law of conservation of mass nouns, which states that no matter how much energy you apply to a mass noun, you can't change it into a countable noun, only into another mass noun. Thus bread is a mass noun, and if you apply heat to it you convert it into toast, which by the law, remains a mass noun.
   • deadrat (ca.60 upvotes)

2. Bread is bread, no matter how you slice it. The energy applied to the knife in slicing a loaf of bread won't change the bread into a countable noun.
   • deadrat

Yet, there are instances when a mass noun can be either ‘countable’ or ‘uncountable’ depending on the context and its meaning.

3. Grain has both countable and noncountable uses. The former because there are different types of grain: "This field is planted in a grain; that one, in a legume." But although we have been given pictures of different types of toast, it's still a mass noun only. @Mari-LouA, can you add a picture of French toast?
   •deadrat

An American user who sustains that nowadays it is common to hear toast used in its countable form

4. Hate to break it to you, but it's not at all uncommon to hear "two toasts" in the US. And sometimes that's even while having breakfast.
   • Hot Licks

I'm not quite sure what skymnigen's point was, perhaps someone could shed some light.

5. If toast was countable, what would we be counting? The slices of toast or the loafs of toast?
   •skymningen

The comment which immediately follows; however, illustrates how it is possible to ‘count’ toast in a native-like manner. I found this comment to be very natural-sounding.

6. All I know is that after the 3rd or 4th toast I lose count.
   • Hot licks

Another user pointing out that mass/uncountable nouns such as meat can be ‘counted’, especially when one is ordering from a restaurant menu. Although the user is arguing that meat shouldn't be reclassified as being countable, the example does show how native speakers will adapt language to fit their needs.

7. If I'm in a restaurant with my family and ordering Sunday lunch, I'm likely to say "That will be 2 beefs, 2 lambs and 1 pork please". But that doesn't mean that "beef", "lamb" and "pork" should be reclassified as countable nouns.
   •Bill Johnstone

A user who sustains that the term toast is just the clipped form for “toasted bread”

8. I mean, isn't "toasted bread " as uncountable as "bread" is? A toast is just short for "a sandwich prepared with toasted bread" in the same way as "a water" can be short for "a bottle of water".
   •Josh61

A bubbly comment that reminds us toast is both a noun (a toast to Alice!) and a verb, (let's toast to world peace) meaning to raise a glass of champagne (or any appropriate drink) in honour of something or to one or more people. In this case, toast is certainly countable. In Italian it is called brindisi, which happens to be the name of an important coastal town in the south of Italy.

9. A toast to this question! And I call for more toasts so that we can count them!
   • CJ Dennis

Sometimes there is no explanation, it's just the way things are...

10. You know, sometimes the answer (especially in this forum) is "It is what it is." There is no "logic" to many things in English. It is largely the result of Brownian motion and, were the clock somehow wound back and it done all over again, many things would be completely different.
    • Daniel R Hicks (Hot Licks)

11. The history of how 'toast' is uncountable is followable (there are instances mentioned here where it is not, but most instances (in the expected meaning) are uncountable. 'Why' may be difficult to substantiate other than an explanation by analogy with other uncountable situations. It does seem weird since you'd think that pieces of toast should be called 'toast' plain and simple. Why it is not is I think just 'because'.
    • Mitch

Edwin Ashcroft argues the need for a more thorough investigation as to why toast is considered uncountable

12. Bill Johnstone Classifying nouns which exhibit both types of behaviour as either 'countable or 'mass/uncountable' is poor analysis. Its usages that are count or otherwise (or sometimes apparently halfway between: a gentle light suffused the scene / two gentle lights ...). // OED apparently labels toast 'countable'; I'd prefer separate entries (or at least 'noncount and count') under the same headword. Some dictionaries show this level of sophistication.
    • Edwin Ashworth

At this point, someone recites The (Holy) Oxford English Dictionary

12. […] 1838 Dickens Let. 1 Feb. (1965) I. 366 ‘We have had for breakfast, toasts, cakes, ...’ 1978 Vishveshvaranand Indological Jrnl. 16 218 ‘He had stopped taking cereals ... but ...had to re-start on medical advice taking two toasts or some cornflakes.’ The OED has two 'toasts'. The first (older) is 'put in wine, water, or other beverage' and is countable. This usage is rare or obsolete except in India. The uncountable usage is first recorded (OED) around 1735 - Swift Panegyrick on D— in Wks. II. 294 ‘Sweeten your Tea, and watch your Toast’. Also 1885 J. Ruskin Præterita I. iii. 84 ‘Quarrelling with her which should have the brownest bits of toast.’
    • Dan

13. EdwinAshworth - OED gives two 'toasts' - the older, countable, used with drinks and now with strongly regional usage, and the more recent (1735), uncountable, current usage.
    • Dan

Another citation from the OED which supports that toast is a mass noun.

14. I wasn't implying otherwise Edwin; the point I was making was that we use the terms countable or uncountable for their predominant use, so I would not expect the "beef" in "Can I have 2 beefs and 1 pork please?" to be listed as a countable noun. If a noun can freely be used both ways, then dictionaries will cite both, though with some nouns consistency is patchy. For example, the basic Cambridge Online Dictionary gives "toast" (the food) only as uncountable, whereas the Oxford gives it as uncountable, except for "stilton and pear toasts" which it correctly says is countable.
    • Bill Johnstone

A user from Europe who points out that toast is countable in French. The same is true in Italian.

15. You may find the following interesting : TLFi with the reference to the Bath, Sommerset anecdote, and DmF for the tostee. In Fr this is countable (that I know of), will even take the mark of the plural (toasts), but should always be pronounced like the singular (toast/toste). It's all quite interesting. Thanks!
    • Amphiteóth

A veteran EL&U memeber who argues the grammar supporting the non-countability of toast does not reflect modern usage, and provides evidence to support his claim.

16. I don't usually have many disagreements with Downing and Locke (English Grammar: A University Course' [2006]) but I think their 'Note that toast meaning 'toasted bread' is always non-count and requires 'a piece [etc] of' in order to refer to an individuated piece' is outdated (though reflected on many grammar sites and in several dictionaries). I'd say that countification (of the bread sense) (and according to Uri's update, that should be recountification) is progressing increasingly quickly today.
    • Edwin Ashworth

17. I'd add to the previous comment that the other common type of countification process, to the 'varieties of' ('arabica and robusta coffees are the two most commonly used'; contrast 'two coffees to go, please'), is clearly in use: {laweekly.com} '10 Best Classic French Toasts in Los Angeles'. This article also contains the noncount usage, and, arguably, the slice-count usage.

Responding to my comment that posited pancakes were countable even though the substance, batter, was uncountable. (Remember deadrat's first comment)

18. Mari-Lou A: Counting pancakes: You can count pancakes because the batter has been quantized. This is elementary quantum mechanics.
    • ab2