 In research on classifier systems , and Chinese classifiers in particular , it has been asked why count @-@ classifiers ( as opposed to mass @-@ classifiers ) exist at all . Mass @-@ classifiers are present in all languages since they are the only way to " count " mass nouns that are not naturally divided into units ( as , for example , " three splotches of mud " in English ; * " three muds " is ungrammatical ) . On the other hand , count @-@ classifiers are not inherently mandatory , and are absent from most languages . Furthermore , count @-@ classifiers are used with an " unexpectedly low frequency " ; in many settings , speakers avoid specific classifiers by just using a bare noun ( without a number or demonstrative ) or using the general classifier 个 gè . Linguists and <unk> such as Joseph Greenberg have suggested that specific count @-@ classifiers are semantically " redundant " , repeating information present within the noun . Count @-@ classifiers can be used stylistically , though , and can also be used to clarify or limit a speaker 's intended meaning when using a vague or ambiguous noun ; for example , the noun <unk> kè " class " can refer to courses in a semester or specific class periods during a day , depending on whether the classifier <unk> ( <unk> ) <unk> or <unk> ( <unk> ) <unk> is used . 
