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


Amount of people

This is one that a good portion of the population is guilty of. I hear plenty of people use “amount” while referring to discrete objects, such as cars or people. (Yes, I just called people objects.)

I don’t remember actually learning this rule, but I have always used “amount” while referring to things that do not easily separate into countable parts, such as water, sand, courage, experience, etc. It seems to me that “number of people” (or some other phrase, depending on context) should be used instead.

I understand that there are cases where this can get confusing (”amount of time” but “number of minutes”), but I think it’s never okay to use “amount” with something that is thought of as a collection of separate objects. Am I crazy? Does this make anyone else cringe? I don’t think I made this rule up, but I will concede that it’s a possibility.

  • September 19, 2006
  • Posted by dima
  • Filed in Usage

Submit Your Comment



Sort by  OldestLatestRating

Does this help? From

—Usage note The traditional distinction between amount and number is that amount is used with mass or uncountable nouns (the amount of paperwork; the amount of energy) and number with countable nouns (a number of songs; a number of days). Although objected to, the use of amount instead of number with countable nouns occurs in both speech and writing, especially when the noun can be considered as a unit or group (the amount of people present; the amount of weapons) or when it refers to money (the amount of dollars paid; the amount of pennies in the till).

Do note, the relevant dictionary entries include definitions such as quantity, measure, number, sum, total of two or more quantities, aggregate. As such, I'm not sure if it's completely wrong to use "amount" in place of "number", at least not in all cases.

Here's a question: if I said "...the amount of people at the party" vs. "...the number of people at the party", would it mean the same thing? In this case, would "amount" refer to the group as a whole, but "number" refer to the actual numeric total, say 15 people?

Personally, I find much vs. many a more annoying misuse fo the language.

Lastly, it's interesting that "amount" or "much" is substituted for "number" or "many", but almost never happens the other way around.

porsche September 20, 2006, 7:39am

6 votes    Permalink    Report Abuse

Good one Porsche! Agree to the end.

Jim Van September 20, 2006, 8:45am

1 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

See, to me the only way "...the amount of people at the party" can sound correct is if people were a substance measured by weight or volume. If you put them all in a blender and ended up with a big bowl of "substance people", where separate people are no longer distinguishable, then I can accept it.

I don't have a problem with something like "That's a lot of man!" while referring to a very large man. Although "man" is generally used to describe a single person, here it's being implied that the person in question has been molded out of a large amount of "substance man".

I agree with you about much vs. many. It's basically the same problem of distinguishing between countable and uncountable.

Dima September 20, 2006, 11:48am

3 votes    Permalink    Report Abuse

You did not make this one up, Dima. I was taught it as a rule of grammar...however I am now 67 years old and I don't think anyone is taught grammar rules anymore.

"Amount" is misused often. I am not conscious of hearing or reading "number" being used inappropriately.

Betty September 20, 2006, 2:25pm

2 votes    Permalink    Report Abuse

Dima, if you ever invite me to a party, I think I'll pass on the Bloody Marys.

porsche September 20, 2006, 6:46pm

3 votes    Permalink    Report Abuse

It's not a problem of being unable to distinguish between countable and uncountable. I find it hard to believe that people don't know the difference between countable and uncountable nouns. Otherwise they would say things like

the number of water in the ocean
the number of sand on the beach

And they don't. Instead, as porsche says, "amount" and "much" are shifting to take some of the load of "number" and "many". There is no trend in the opposite direction.

goofy September 21, 2006, 11:52am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

This seems to be more of a categorization problem than a grammar problem. There are two types of quantities, discreet and continuous. Speaking of an amount of a discreet quantity is like talking about the size of blue.

Patrick September 29, 2006, 3:05pm

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

I think that I'd object to Goofy's characterization of water and sand as countable nouns.

The particles making up these objects are countable, but the aggregates are uncounted. One might refer to a number of molecules or moles (the molecule being implicit in the unit "mole") of water, but an amount of water. Likewise, one might have a number of grains of sand but an amount of sand. In this sense, the grains of sand and the water molecules lose their individual identities (or they are ignored by the speaker) when considered in the aggregate.

This line of reasoning leads one to conclude that a mob comprises an amount of people rather than a number of persons.

Lance ==)----------- October 2, 2006, 1:30pm

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

I didn't say that "water" and "sand" are countable nouns. They are uncountable nouns, also called mass nouns.

goofy October 20, 2006, 8:07am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

I think Lance has a point. In my experience there are usually a number of people at a party until I start to see double. Thereafter they become an amount of people.

Soup October 22, 2006, 3:31pm

4 votes    Permalink    Report Abuse

In teaching this rule to high school English students, I simplify it a bit as follows: Use amount for things measured, and number for things counted. I extend that usage rule to cover less and fewer, as well.

CapableGirl October 29, 2006, 3:52pm

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

I am a Pole and, surprisingly enough, people make the equivalent of this mistake in Polish. Somehow people don't stop to pay attention to it. But indeed this is a mistake.

dzajba November 1, 2006, 2:11am

1 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

It's not a mistake. It might not be accepted in formal writing, but that's a matter of register.

From the The Columbia Guide to Standard American English
"Use amount with singular mass nouns (an amount of money; the amount of love), and use number with plural count nouns (the number of castles; a number of sophomores). Common and Vulgar English frequently use amount with plural count nouns (a huge amount of children on the playground), and repeated exposures to that usage often blur the Standard models for us. There are also instances where plural count nouns are treated as representing those items in mass and hence usable with amount (He contracted for an enormous amount of apples). In speech such a use might go almost unnoticed, but Edited English would most likely change it to number or find an entirely different way to say it."

Note that "Vulgar English" and "Common English" are pejoratives here; they are just nonstandard.

John November 1, 2006, 5:26am

1 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

um... That should be "are not pejoratives here"

John November 1, 2006, 5:26am

2 votes    Permalink    Report Abuse

If you can reasonably count the individuals of the group it is 'number', but if you cannot it is 'amount'. This is the rule I taught my children.

I think the the comment made above regarding countable and measurable as a basic method of distinction between the two is a good model to follow.

I do dislike hearing a group of people refered to as an 'amount of people'. Not nice! I think I need one big Bloody Mary and that would be a large amount of Bloody Mary. Then again I could recover more slowly by consuming several individual Bloody Mary's but that number of Bloody Mary's would render me even more senseless than I already am. :-)

bwilsher January 2, 2008, 8:32am

1 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

One of my readers has asked me about an extension of this problem. Is it correct to say, "A number of accidents have occurred at this corner" or "A number of accidents has occured at this corner"?

I understand the reasoning behind the question, since "number" is a singular noun even though it describes plural items. However, I believe the correct usage is:

A number of accidents HAVE occurred.....
The number of accidents that have occurred has risen.

I hope this adds to the conversation!

Helen Wilkie

hwilkie January 13, 2008, 8:05am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

It's very, very easy- Number is always used when talking about a plural. Whether you know how many people are in a crowd makes no difference- 'Amount of people in a crowd' just sounds clumsy.

George March 26, 2008, 6:36am

1 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

Totally agree. In fact before I saw your post, I posted on Facebook :-
'I'm getting grumpier. "The amount of people".... what? 3,000 Kgs of people?'

mike_biddell January 17, 2011, 7:36am

1 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

I agree that to talk about a number of people or cars makes much more sense and sounds better than to talk about an amount of people. But this seems to me to have more to do with the meaning of words than with "grammar rules".

rmensies January 22, 2011, 7:45pm

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

The number of times I have seen this abomination (e.g. "the amount of shoes", "the amount of times", "the amount of goals", "the amount of chances" et cetera ad nauseam) is truly remarkable. The simplest way to know which to use is this: If you would inquire "How many?" then use "number". If you would inquire "How much?" then use "amount"?

How many people were at the party last night? Bingo --> Number of people

Stavros K. May 17, 2011, 12:52pm

3 votes    Permalink    Report Abuse

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on historic principals also defines 'amount'
as:To come up to a number or quantity,the sum total to which anything mounts up
and 'number; as,the sum or aggregate of any collection of individual things or persons.

Brentie July 25, 2011, 4:52am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

10 years on, and it's been getting steadily worse. Possible major contributing factor: the overwhelming exposure of vast numbers of internet users who lack basic English language proficiency to the comments and blogs of equally vast numbers internet users who also lack basic English language proficiency. In other words, a self-propagating culture of ever degenerating English language. This culture, owing to it's internet dominance, has come to define new norms via 'common usage'. To an old timer like me, the corruption is abominable; but I suppose I'm out-numbered - or should that be 'out-amounted'?

Vinck7 August 3, 2016, 10:19am

1 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse


I'm with you 100%.
Unfortunately there are even well educated people, some of whom post on this forum, who maintain that we need not differentiate between countable and uncountable nouns and that there is therefore no difference between less/fewer, much/many, amount/number, etc.
Those of us who insist on proper usage are all pedants.

A pox on common usage and its depredation of the language.

Hairy Scot August 8, 2016, 1:33pm

1 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

@Hairy If one looks up "less" on, one can see that "less" has been used to mean "fewer" from its earliest appearance in OE.
"Amount" is a quite different kettle of fish, I agree, and goes with uncountable nouns.
Bonus points for "depredation" of the language though, quite a picture. "Proper" usage has however changed since Dickens

jayles the unsmitten August 8, 2016, 6:25pm

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse


Surely you do not mean that its is acceptable to say "fewer money" instead of "less money" or "less dollars" instead of "fewer dollars"?
Or are you referring to the less/fewer debate as it affect the signs at supermarket checkouts?
As for depredation; when I read items on internet forums (fora) I have I to think my use of the word is justified.
I have no doubt that there are many high school English teachers who, thanks to common usage, have been turning in their graves with increasing regularity over the last 30 for 40 years.

Hairy Scot August 9, 2016, 5:35pm

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

Forgive the superfluous "I" in my previous entry.
Finger trouble.

Hairy Scot August 9, 2016, 5:38pm

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

@HS "I'd submit that there is a place for both words" if I may quote your good self from the less/fewer thread.

jayles the unforgiven August 10, 2016, 6:33pm

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

I do not dispute that there is a place for both words.
I'd just prefer to see and hear them used properly.

Hairy Scot August 11, 2016, 5:11pm

1 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

Yes     No