Amounts vs. Numbers

This doesn't get me as annoyed as "lie" vs. "lay" but it does occasionally give me pause when I'm reading something. It's another rule which is fairly easy to follow.

Use "numbers" for discrete objects. In other words, marbles can be counted, so there are "large numbers of marbles" if you don't feel like specifying a number but would like to impress upon the audience the largeness of the number of marbles.

Use "amounts" for things which cannot be counted. Coffee, for instance, cannot be counted; there is simply more of it. So "large amounts of coffee," cannot be counted, it can simply be understood to be a large amount. If one were to say "large amounts of cups of coffee," one would be mistaken, because one can count cups of coffee. Thus, "large numbers of cups of coffee," or perhaps even better, "many cups of coffee."

If you're unsure, why not use "quantities" instead? You can use that terminology whatever you're describing. So "large quantities of marbles" is correct, as well as "large quantities of coffee."

Why does that work? Because the origin of "quantities" is in fact "quanta" or "atoms." We're accustomed to thinking of "atom" as referring to an object containing protons, neutrons, and electrons, but an atom is simply the smallest amount of a thing (see, I used amount because I can't count it) which still has that thing's properties. So obviously, 1 marble is the smallest amount of marble (not "amount of marbles," but rather the smallest amount of the thing which possesses, as a quality, marble-ness) which can be said to still be a marble. If you cut a marble in half, it is no longer a marble, but rather is glass, so it is a quantity of glass, but not of marbles. Similarly, there is some smallest amount of coffee which still possesses coffee-ness as a property, and though one doesn't really care how small that amount is, one can say that it is an atom, or quantum (the singular of quanta) of coffee, and thus having large numbers of quanta would constitute a large quantity of coffee.

Why do you think "Quantum of Solace" is called that? It's not because it's a silly title (which it is, but that's not the reason). It's because it actually means, "a very small amount of solace, the smallest amount there can be." Well, actually, the writer merely meant "a very small amount of solace," but still, one can speak of quantities of solace, and a quantum would be the smallest amount there could be while still being solace. Quantum mechanics is called that because it deals with the smallest things that are still things. So you can use "quanta" to speak of physical objects, or of mental states or emotions, and all it really means is "the smallest amount." Thus, quantities means a grouping of quanta, and therefore quantities is not burdened by the ability to count the thing being described because one can always count quanta.

That went far afield at the end, into metaphysics or something, but the bottom line is that amounts cannot be counted, they can be measured. So a kilogram is an amount, but you can't count the individual bits of a kilogram unless you divide it into smaller amounts, which themselves cannot be counted in bits unless you divide them into smaller amounts. You can count numbers of amounts, so I can say that there are large numbers of milligrams in a kilogram, but I can't say that there are large numbers of coffee in a liter, no matter how hard I try. It really makes sense if you see the exaggerated examples.

If you can count it, use "numbers" in place of the actual number that you're too lazy to count. There are large numbers of stars in the sky. If you can't count it, use "amounts" in place of the measurement that you're too lazy to take. There are large amounts of water in the Atlantic Ocean. If you're stuck and can't figure out which to use, or you think you could use either, then use "quantities" and be safe. There are both large quantities of stars in the sky and large quantities of water in the Atlantic Ocean, but it would be hard to compare the two numerically.

Simple.