 In an earlier piece, Pelletier says “it seems there is nothing in the referent of the terms that should make fruit mass and vegetable count, baklava mass and brownie count, rice mass and bean count” (2001 p497). When we are not thinking about linguistics or metaphysics, and have to go about our business, we see that sometimes it is convenient to look at its inhabitants in a massy way (‘I’ve got 1000 pounds of furniture to ship,’ ‘I had too much fruitcake’), and sometimes in a count way (‘Large-Haired Real Estate Agent’s Quarterly says that a dining table, six chairs, and credenza are necessary for ideal dining room staging,’ ‘We need two fruitcakes for the party’). Whenever we have some stuff or particles whose smallest macroscopically visible bits are identical or interchangeable, and they can be gathered or stuck together or can act together in a macroscopic way (e.g. air/wind), we tend to think of it in massy way, and, as regards its small-scale structure, there just is no folk pre-scientific commonsense commitment to either atomism or not (cf Ware 1975, pace Bunt 1985, Link 1998). The only reason that rice is mass and beans count is probably because the former are smaller and harder to distinguish, or count separately. Change becomes coins when we want to count them, whereas humans become flesh when their individuality is regarded as unimportant, e.g. in the following real-world example. One Dr. Albert Klingman, when beginning medical experiments on prisoners, upon first seeing them (many who were shirtless), said that “All I saw before me were acres of skin. It was like a farmer seeing a fertile field for the first time” (Munson &amp; Lague, 2017, 133).