I see what you're trying to say, A. G., but it's not "presumably" so at all : it's absolutely verifiable. Just read the etymology given above.
This is such an interesting case, particularly because the word "clothes" is a very ancient English noun whose meaning was altered very late (19th century) when "cloths" came into use.
As for whether "clothes" is an uncountable noun (or mass noun), we do actually, still and always, treat clothes as a plural noun : we say "these clothes are his", not "this clothes is his". Therefore the noun "clothes" can indeed be counted, if only in the limited sense that it is never one single thing (the technical term is "plurale tantum" from Latin ; or, for plural instances of this, "pluralia tantum").
Counting from one, "clothes" is anything but one. That would seem to hint at a kind of countability by some limited definition. However, I agree that one cannot say, "He has six clothes" - in that sense it is uncountable. ("He has six articles of clothing" is the correct form in that instance.)
Trickier still, grammarians tell us that words like "these" and "many" cannot be used before a noun that is uncountable, as with a truly uncountable noun such as "furniture" or "rice". Like other uncountable nouns, "furniture" and "rice" shall take a singular verb as a rule : "Furniture is sold here" - "The rice is delicious" ["rices" as a plural noun can be somewhat informally used to mean "kinds of rice", but the principle stands firm].
By contrast, we can, and should, correctly refer to "these clothes" and "many clothes" - with a matching verb in the plural form - "are", not "is". "Clothes" is always a plural. Yet, by definition, uncountable nouns have no plural, do they ?- Where does that leave us ?
Would we settle for terms in which the noun "clothes" is a plural-only-uncountable-noun, having no singular form with the same meaning ?- Or is there limited countability in this noun ?
It might be best to declare that the noun "clothes" is not defective so much as the received terminology itself is defective !
This is such an interesting case, particularly because the word "clothes" is a very ancient English noun whose meaning was altered very late (19th century) when "cloths" came into use.
As for whether "clothes" is an uncountable noun (or mass noun), we do actually, still and always, treat clothes as a plural noun : we say "these clothes are his", not "this clothes is his". Therefore the noun "clothes" can indeed be counted, if only in the limited sense that it is never one single thing (the technical term is "plurale tantum" from Latin ; or, for plural instances of this, "pluralia tantum").
Counting from one, "clothes" is anything but one. That would seem to hint at a kind of countability by some limited definition. However, I agree that one cannot say, "He has six clothes" - in that sense it is uncountable. ("He has six articles of clothing" is the correct form in that instance.)
Trickier still, grammarians tell us that words like "these" and "many" cannot be used before a noun that is uncountable, as with a truly uncountable noun such as "furniture" or "rice". Like other uncountable nouns, "furniture" and "rice" shall take a singular verb as a rule : "Furniture is sold here" - "The rice is delicious" ["rices" as a plural noun can be somewhat informally used to mean "kinds of rice", but the principle stands firm].
By contrast, we can, and should, correctly refer to "these clothes" and "many clothes" - with a matching verb in the plural form - "are", not "is". "Clothes" is always a plural. Yet, by definition, uncountable nouns have no plural, do they ?- Where does that leave us ?
Would we settle for terms in which the noun "clothes" is a plural-only-uncountable-noun, having no singular form with the same meaning ?- Or is there limited countability in this noun ?
It might be best to declare that the noun "clothes" is not defective so much as the received terminology itself is defective !