Your Pain Is Our Pleasure

We proofread your Google Docs or Microsoft Word files within 24 hours. We hate grammatical errors with passion. Learn More


watch much stuff?

Alright, this has me stumped for some reason. I believe that saying “I don’t watch much stuff.” is incorrect, but I can’t articulate why. At first, I thought the problem was with [action verb] + stuff, but I realize that you can ask someone to please watch your stuff, so that’s not it. And the problem isn’t simply ‘much stuff’ because someone can have too much stuff. In any case, I was hoping for a definitive reason why (or why not, if I am wrong) it is improper to say ‘watch much stuff’.

Submit Your Comment



Sort by  OldestLatestRating

"I have much respect for Elena" works fine for me.

Mona Albano February 28, 2014, 7:02am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

@Hacovo - Are you sure people are saying "I don't watch much stuff" without further qualification? For example, if somebody said - "I don't watch much of the stuff that's on TV nowadays" - that would sound like an entirely natural sentence to me. Could you perhaps give us some more context, or better still, an example.

Warsaw Will November 23, 2012, 11:21pm

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

"Stuff" is neither a plural noun, like "things", nor a collective noun, like "group" or "pack". Stuff, sugar, metal etc are uncountable (or non-count) nouns. As others have said, "many" is used with countable, while "much" is used with uncountable, but for both we usually prefer "a lot of" in positive statements, especially in informal English - "I watch a lot of stuff". But as Benjymyn suggested, it could work equally as well for the negative version. Otherwise I go along with the idea that it's a bit vague, although I wouldn't call it slangy; it all depends on context. But I don't think there's anything 'improper' about it.

Warsaw Will November 23, 2012, 11:07am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

Could that work as good?
/non-native English speaker”

So it seems.

nigel June 14, 2012, 11:49am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

I'd just say "I don't watch a lot of things".
Could that work as good?

/non-native English speaker

Benjymyn June 14, 2012, 7:10am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

See, that sounds weird also. 'Much sugar'; 'much water'... It sounds odd to hear 'much' by itself I suppose. If it were 'very much' or 'that much'. My default would be to say 'I have a lot of sugar' instead of 'I have much sugar'. Heck, I could even tolerate 'I don't have much sugar'. So once again, it boils down to '[verb] + much', and it must just be the lack of euphony for my auditory palate.

Hacovo May 10, 2012, 4:17am

1 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

"Stuff" is like "sugar." You don't have to say you have many sugar. You have much sugar. I believe it's called a collective noun. Other examples: material, money, water.

Mona Albano May 9, 2012, 4:43pm

1 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

I think my problem may be 'much' being coupled with a plural noun (stuff in this case referring to 'tv shows'), in which case my brain is expecting 'many'. Obviously you wouldn't say 'many stuff', but I think that I'm still thinking of 'stuff' as 'shows' in my mind. Does that make sense?

Hacovo April 26, 2012, 8:32am

1 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

I think nigel is right ... It is the vagueness of "stuff" in this sentence. What "stuff" are yu talking about? In context it becomes clearer if yu say: I don't watch much stuff like that (maybe talking about a TV program or a genre of film).

The grammar is ok. It's only out of context and thus is vague.

AnWulf April 26, 2012, 5:55am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

I think in the English language we have come to relate the word "stuff" with tangible personal property. Because you are trying to relate it with television programming instead, perhaps it is giving you a 'bad English' reflex?

BR1 April 21, 2012, 4:07pm

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

Yes, directly replacing programs on television (sorry for leaving that out).
I suppose it probably is the complete lack of euphony that is bugging me.

Hacovo April 18, 2012, 7:01pm

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

I do not see any problem with the grammar, but using "stuff" in this sense (I am guessing it means television programs, or something like that) is both vague and slangy. Perhaps it is that which is making you uneasy. Also, it is not a very euphonious sentence.

nigel April 18, 2012, 4:02pm

1 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

Yes     No