Yeah, they are pretty similar.
Another thing I didn't mention in the ask was thus:
Say a culture has a word for sand: Nate. ['natÉ›]
If one Nate is one grain of sand, what are Multiple Nate (Natel).
What does Natel represent? Multiple grains of sand? A pile of sand? Would they have a new word for a pile of sand? Would it be derived from Nate? Should it be considered plural? It is referring to *a* pile, but it's referring to a *pile*, which has lots of sand grains!
This kind of thing keeps me up at night.
Again, sorry for ranting.
CW: Venting then asking for opinion
I stayed up last night thinking. About what? Sand.
But not sand itself. Nono. Counting with sand.
When you count sand, you count grains of sand. Then you say it's a pile of sand. Then a dune of sand. Then it's just... sand. But there is no clear distinction between any of those counting words.
When does "grains of sand" become "a pile of sand" become "a dune of sand?"
Sand doesn't even have a plural. Think about it. You cannot refer to multiples of sand without using another words. Sands? Nope. Types of sand.
You might say it's the same as with Bison and Sheep, but those can be counted. (1 Bison, 2 Bison, 1 sheep, 354 sheep) You can't count with sand. (1 sand? 2 sand? what?)
Opinions on the subject? Sorry for ranting
Yeah, it's certainly an interesting subject. I remember hearing about this thought experiment with snowflakes instead of sand. Like how many little flakes have to fall in one particular place before you notice you have a small pile of snow? And how many flakes would you have to take away for it to *cease* being a snow pile?
I guess snow and sand are similar things. Like sand has grains, and snow has flakes. But when you have enough flakes grouped together, it just becomes... snow.