He has a beard. He has a stubble. I think I will stick with "a stubble".
By the hair on my chinny, chin, chin these seem right to me, but I cannot explain why.Maybe that means
He has a two-day stubble.
He has a three-day stubble.
I'm surprised, Miss Julie, that you dislike "a stubble" so much. Like Packard, I use "a stubble". As Packard suggested, that use probably comes from its relationship to "a beard".You say that as if English were logical. Unless you were Homer Simpson, you wouldn't say you have "a hair," right?
I didn't say I disliked it, I just don't use it...unless there's a qualifier (two-day, etc). Like I said, it may be a regional thing.I'm surprised, Miss Julie, that you dislike "a stubble" so much. Like Packard, I use "a stubble". As Packard suggested, that use probably comes from its relationship to "a beard".
I think you're on to something there, owlman! Maybe it's a gender thing then.It might also be a gender thing. I hear other men use "a stubble" frequently. I've heard them use the phrase in different parts of the country. Perhaps women are used to thinking of "stubble" on unshaven legs, etc. If I were using "stubble" to describe something that grew on legs, on a scalp, or under arms, I'd probably use "stubble" with no article.
It definitely sounds bad to me.We've got three different men here from three different regions (edit: in the U.S.), so it might be more of a man thing rather than a regional thing. I don't use a stubble, but I can imagine sentences in which it might work better than stubble, e.g., "I normally go for clean-cut guys, but I have to say that a stubble really suits Karl Urban." (And it does, too! )
Saying that "that stubble really suits Karl" doesn't sound right, somehow. I could write around it, of course, but a stubble doesn't sound bad here, for some reason.
(Cross-posted with Julie and Owlman)
That sounds pretty natural to me, at least. The emphasis on the first is on this state of facial hair growth known as "a stubble." The second sounds more like a statement on the condition of his face.I'm happy with
"He had a blond stubble." (All uncountable nouns can be rendered countable by qualification.)
"He was usually well-kempt but he now had a stubble."
"Your face is covered in stubble." (Uncountable.)
"He has a stubble." but "His face has stubble."?
Me neither, not even with qualifiers:I can think of no circumstances under which I could say 'he has a stubble'
He has a two-day stubble. He has two days' growth / He has a two-day(s) beard / He has two days' worth of stubble.
"He had a blond stubble."He had blond stubble.
"He was usually well-kempt but he now had a stubble."He was usually well-kempt but he now had stubble.
I've never heard anyone say "a stubble" in Britain before (at least not that I've noticed) and it just sounds a little odd (typical English understatement) to my British ears.
I like to see it as a generalization.>> (All uncountable nouns can be rendered countable by qualification.)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, Paul, but that seems like a rather rash overstatement, to me.
Both are quite strange: in one form they are strongly uncountable but they do have countable forms, albeit rare. I was thinking more of weaker uncoultable nouns -> honesty, coffee, knowledge, and stubble, etc. an homogenous form that nevertheless has divisions.You wouldn't apply the same reasoning to 'advice' or 'information', would you?
"He had a strange stubble that extended to his lower eyelids."I'm warming to something like Stoggler's position. Some Americans (and Paul)* say 'a stubble'.
*Although, I'm not sure that I believe you*.