Is Evidence Countable? – Word Usage Explained

word-usage

As a native English speaker, I am often asked by friends and colleagues to correct their manuscripts. One of the most common mistakes I find is the use of the noun evidences. Now, the dictionary definitions I have read state that evidence is a mass noun, that it is not countable. For example, this one:

noun [mass noun]

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination

  • Law information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or
    admissible as testimony in a law court:without evidence, they can’t
    bring a charge
  • signs or indications of something:there was no obvious evidence of a break-in

However, I came across (don't ask me how) this article: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe

I had firstly assumed that this was either an outright error or at best a usage that is specific to christian literature, but upon further analysis things get more complicated. On the one hand, most google hits for evidences seem to be from the christian fundamentalist and/or creationist literature, on the other hand this article has collected multiple examples of its use citing such luminaries of the English language as William Shakespeare, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. Indeed, this google NGram shows that evidences used to be quite common (note that I am searching for "many evidences" which should filter out most uses of evidence as a transitive verb):

enter image description here

Finally, I also found a definition in the online Oxford Learner's Dictionary which includes the following line:

(technical) The cave contained evidences of prehistoric settlement.

While I have encountered this use in technical literature (my field is biology), it was always used by non-native authors in whose language, as is very often the case, evidence is probably countable (e.g. ES: evidencias, FR: évidences).

So, my question is, is evidence countable? The two quoted definitions contradict themselves. Evidences as a plural noun sounds horrible to my native's ear. Apparently, it is indeed a valid archaic usage but is it grammatical today? I don't have access to an unabridged OED or any other dictionary of similar status and quality, what do they suggest?

Best Answer

OED suggests that countable evidences are either obsolete, obsolescent or very specialised.

The countable entries are

†2. Manifestation; display. Obs.
3. a. An appearance from which inferences may be drawn; an indication, mark, sign, token, trace.

1860 J. Tyndall Glaciers of Alps i. xv. 99 A day..was spent in examining the evidences of ancient glacier action.

3. b. In religious language: Signs or tokens of personal salvation.

1758 S. Hayward Seventeen Serm. xvi. 493 A person just entering upon eternity..with his evidences all dark.

†4. Example, instance (frequent in Gower).
5. †b. an evidence: something serving as a proof.
5. c. Evidence or Evidences of Christianity , Evidences of the Christian Religion, or simply The Evidences.
6. a. Information, whether in the form of personal testimony, the language of documents, or the production of material objects, that is given in a legal investigation, to establish the fact or point in question. Also, an evidence = a piece of evidence.
†7. a. One who furnishes testimony or proof; a witness. Obs.
†7. b. transf. A spy. Obs.
†8. A document by means of which a fact is established. Obs. exc. Hist. and in legal formulæ.

Of the countable senses not marked as obsolete, 3, 5c and 6 are all specialised uses, and possibly obsolescent. The latest citations which are explicitly plural are 1860 and 1758 [there may be later uses; this is just what's included by OED], which would certainly indicate that usage could be expected to decline.

However, 3a does cover your quote about "evidences of prehistoric settlement". This would appear to be a valid specialised use, and the fact that it is specialised might explain the low incidence.

Related Topic