@ nick about adjectives and nouns
Posts : 12895
|Subject: @ nick about adjectives and nouns Mon 09 Aug 2010, 5:55 am|| |
well, because there are right now vacations of our university idk how long it will take until the 2 english professors i emailed will answer. especially because they dont know me, and they have to plan the next semester, the whole classes and so on.
thats why i read everything in the english wikipedia. first off general the english grammar.
it supported my point of view that 1 word is designed to be one of it and is not defined by its usage.
though it doesnt clear up what to do with words like red, which obviously can name the color as a color and be a noun or name something as to be colored and be a adjective.
furthermore doesnt explain words that can used to be a noun or a verb or anything. like ram. the ram and to ram. but you would never say i food you. i think its just occasion that noun and verb is the same word. just like the word "like" you can "like" something. or something can be "like" another thing. there the relation of the meaning isnt so close or even the same, like in "the ram" and "to ram".
(but you can say the ram is broken. but only if you know that its the ram as a noun. you would never think that the verb is meant when you say the ram is broken)
and because i dont want you to read that whole stuff i searched for something that is about the fundamental problem, that led us to the discussion.
and there you can see that a noun, even if you use it like an adjective, stays a noun. and it is like i said: it can be called attribute. (attributive noun) but it cant be an adjective.
because adjective is naming a type of word, and not its function. as you can see you can use in some special cases adjectives as a subject of an action, or, if you so want, as a noun, which are adjectival nouns. you can be redirected to this by the link above as well.
so you can say, and i grab the example of wikipida: the rich. but rich stays an adjective. an adjective with a function as a noun.
so the noun in a compound, even in english language, stays a noun.
and therefore, because that was my basic's basic i looked up something very helpful about compounds.
where it reads also attributive nouns.
and it list the 3 types of comounds: closed (containership) hyphenated (container-ship) and open (container ship)
and it says the only difference could be in the length of the words. but often depends on the usage of the speaker.
and if you remember why i thougth about it. it was about football. i insulted american football. saying it was american handegg. and at some point you went into the defense, and i cant remember why and in which situation, you found a significant discrepancy in the meanings, if i say foot ball, instead of football.
mhh... what a shame that i cant remember that one.
but if we ever talk again about the shitty of american handegg, i will be well prepared xD
Posts : 10542
|Subject: Re: @ nick about adjectives and nouns Mon 09 Aug 2010, 6:27 am|| |
You're certainly right Xaso hat certain nouns have the same use of verbs and/or adjectives when phrased differently or an article like 'a' or 'the' is used in front of it.
As to nouns themselves there are two main types: concrete and abstract.
Concrete is generally something physical - Road, Tower, House, Plane, Ruler, Computer, Eye, - are all Concrete Nouns.
Abstract is self-explanatory - thoughts, dreams, anger, God/Gods, magic - All abstract.
As for adjectives they are most commonly used before or after a noun.
Example: The flying plane.
This is a pre-modifying, concrete noun simple sentence with a definite article determiner.
'The' is the article. 'Plane' is the noun. 'Flying' is both a verb and adjective but primary purpose I would say is definitely to pre-modify a noun by use of adjective.
So it is PRE-modifying because the adjective comes BEFORE the noun. If it came after it would be POST-modifying.
___________________IT'S A TRAP!Onen hag Oll
Posts : 3079
|Subject: Re: @ nick about adjectives and nouns Mon 09 Aug 2010, 6:46 am|| |
Xaso, as you read the Wikipedia entry on "English grammar," you will see multiple places where it says a word can be
a type, implying it can be more than one type. There is clearly a difference to epic linguistics nerds between an English word that can be more than one type, and one that cannot but may be used to serve the purpose of another type. But there are a plethora of words that serve both types. You give Wikipedia's example of "rich," but <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rich?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic">dictionary.com's entry for "rich"</a> clearly lists that it may be a noun.
In English, words may serve multiple purposes, and when they do, we say that they are
that type in that context. That's just what we say, take it to mean what you will. That's why Wikipedia says some of those words "can be" a noun, or "can be" an adjective. I don't doubt that things like the "noun adjunct" help to explain why some nouns are not listed as adjectives in the dictionary, but the difference is unclear even to me, and I'm pretty good at English grammar. Likely things like the noun adjunct serve to allow nouns to modify other nouns as is typically the function of adjectives, and once the noun is used as an adjective often enough and for a long enough period, it takes on a subtle new meaning to the users and becomes listed as an adjective. Or it could be that there is actually a logical difference and it's just too abstract for anyone but English professors to fully understand. My guess is that it's probably just a matter of evolution and establishment, though. Regardless, I was not confident in saying some of those modifier nouns were adjectives, and now my instinct was appeased with this new information that nouns can in fact modify other nouns. Now that I've thought about it for awhile, I do faintly recall two-noun sets from English classes where the two words together were taught to us to be treated as a sort of noun, and that the exact classification was too advanced for our level and we left it at that. But there are also a ton of nouns that can also be adjectives, as verified by the dictionary and Wikipedia. So on some level, we were both right.
I think you are sort of on to something here, at least in the way of thinking about what "being" a type means. But it's not simply a coincidence that they are the same word, because they almost always convey the same idea, just in a different form (you ram things with a ram, not coincidence that it's the same word). But you might be able to say that the noun ram is a "different" word from the verb ram. It's mostly just classification though, because they are obviously similar and meant to be so.
- Xasomur wrote:
- i think its just occasion that noun and verb is the same word.
Bottom line though is that English is different from German. I've taken plenty of English classes and I'm well above average when it comes to English grammar. Words can be different types in English, plain and simple. There might be technical definitions for exactly what type they are, but when it's all said and done, it's still listed as multiple types in the dictionary because that's just how English users decided to classify their words.
You might not like it and it might offend your inner Latin, but it's the reality.
Posts : 12895
|Subject: Re: @ nick about adjectives and nouns Mon 09 Aug 2010, 10:14 am|| |
well you didnt got the point.
if anything is USED like an adjective it doesnt have to BE an adjective.
it stays a noun and gets the FUNCTION of an adjective. in that case its an attributive noun.
and i gave you the example of the noun adjunct, because it says explicitly that the noun is an attributive noun and no adjective.
and i gave you the english compound one because it differs noun to noun compounding and the adjective to noun compounding
and its interesting to see that every article gives lists and comparisons to other languages. and thats why i wonder that english should be such a exception, and in fact it is only your personal way to name it.
but in fact, you see that 1 word, as long as it doesnt have exactly the same letters (like "like", or "ram"), then it has only 1 type. but the word itself can have different FUNCTIONS.
and in fact it is alot more logic to say that one word has different functions than say it changes its inner type everytime you use it differently.
and i just talked to rachel. it looks like you english guys fail at some grammar
(no offense of course xD)
because when you learn about syntax, you learn about subject, object, predicate. but not about attribute it seems. (i heard adverb from you ^^)
all those are FUNCTIONS for words or phrases.
so even a verb can be a subject: running is fun. running is a verb with the function of a subject.
even a phrase can be an object.
i like that ppl play jk2
that ppl play jk2 is the object of the sentence.
and, nearly EVERYTHING can be an attribute. though adjectives normally take that part. but even nouns can be. but they stay nounds.
(though you can change the word root. like shame. a noun (if its not "to shame") --> shameless, adjective. or to ram. ---> rammed, adjective. ramming ----> adjective or noun [ramming is fun. ^^ or a ramming ship]. and this last one, would be th eonly one where i could understand your points of the discussion
Posts : 2697
|Subject: Re: @ nick about adjectives and nouns Mon 09 Aug 2010, 11:55 am|| |
Again with the high-level english! Dx
Posts : 3079
|Subject: Re: @ nick about adjectives and nouns Mon 09 Aug 2010, 6:02 pm|| |
You're applying German rules to English again. My English classes have never mentioned something having an "inner" type. All English language pertaining to the subject has said that it is
one thing or another. Never have I seen any evidence that suggests words have a "default" type and they are simply used in different forms. As far as I'm aware, this concept does not exist in the English language, and you are just pulling it from the way you conceptualize language. There are no "inner" types, so there is no changing. Words can simply use their noun, verb, adjective, etc. definitions, depending on which one is used.
Let me sum this up:
Why is that more logical? Because you're used to it? I see no logic, other than your saying that is the way it is. Why must a word have only one type? What Grammar God dictated so? This is not an absolute truth, just a way of conceptualizing language. No way is "right."
- Xasomur wrote:
- and in fact it is alot more logic to say that one word has different functions than say it changes its inner type everytime you use it differently.
You're right, we don't learn about attribute. Because that's not primarily the way we conceptualize our language. Just because your language does does not mean that we are failing to do something; we simply do it differently. In English, one word can have multiple definitions, and sometimes an alternate definition is a different class, such as a noun being an adjective. That's just how we organize things. Again, there is no Absolute Truth stating that a word can only be one type, that's just the way some languages organize their words. You cannot say "all those are FUNCTIONS for words or phrases" implying that they are nothing more just because that's how your language treats them. If our languages treats them differently, then that's how we treat them. The Romans did not bequeath unto us the divine gift of language, diverging from which is a mortal sin punishable by long ridiculous chats about grammar online. They simply created a system, and other languages have borrowed from or evolved from their structure. It is possible to have a word with definitions in multiple classes, and English does it.
Now if you don't BELIEVE me, that's fine. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Your attempting to explain logic to me is not going to move the conversation along, because you cannot apply logic to talk down a social construct; it doesn't exist in the first place. If you think I'm wrong, you must first show me the explanation for why the dictionary lists words as multiple classes. Until you explain that, I'm going to trust my 12 years of English lessons.
Posts : 3079
|Subject: Re: @ nick about adjectives and nouns Mon 09 Aug 2010, 11:20 pm|| |
Xaso, I think I may have found our problem. From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjective">Wikipedia - Adjective:</a>
"Linguists today distinguish determiners from adjectives, considering them to be two separate parts of speech (or lexical categories), but traditionally, determiners were considered adjectives in some of their uses. (In English dictionaries, which typically still do not treat determiners as their own part of speech, determiners are often recognizable by being listed both as adjectives and as pronouns.) Determiners are words that express the reference of a noun in the context, generally indicating definiteness (as in a vs. the), quantity (as in one vs. some vs. many), or another such property."
Although just before that, it states:
"Many languages, including English, distinguish between adjectives, which modify nouns and pronouns, and adverbs, which modify verbs, adjectives, and other adverbs. Not all languages have exactly this distinction, however, and in many languages (including English) there are words that can function as both. For example, in English fast is an adjective in "a fast car" (where it modifies the noun car), but an adverb in "he drove fast" (where it modifies the verb drove)."
Looks like they are indeed just two different forms of classification. K-12 classes probably still teach the traditional, and college English majors probably learn the newer classifications.
Posts : 4357
|Subject: Re: @ nick about adjectives and nouns Mon 09 Aug 2010, 11:24 pm|| |
This topic is more boring than the time i tried to teach sign language to a silver back.
Posts : 12895
|Subject: Re: @ nick about adjectives and nouns Mon 09 Aug 2010, 11:31 pm|| |
dude, it doesnt list food as a adjective.
it listed war as a verb.
and in my dictionary it says "the war" and "to war lit."
but not adjective
this is the only case where words can be both, when the two word types are written the same.
but the food and to feed are not the same. but i think there is the reason for the misunderstanding that words may have the type like u use them.
and besides colors there is no noun i found in the 5 minutes i searched through it that lists as a djective too.
and the only situation in whoch a noun works like an adhective is in a noun adjunct. and as you saw in that article, even then its called noun.
and as you totally ignored all those articles, in which obviously words are always called in their basic word type and get a special function only.
so if you dont want to beliefe me only because i am no native speaker, and because you think that languages differ so much in their inner structure. i am ready to wait until the one of the professors answer. learning english for 8 years, spanish for 4 years and latin for 6 and now studying it and while that learning greek and now having my graecum, i think i know what i say, even without being native speaker. and i am confident enough to wait...
Posts : 4357
|Subject: Re: @ nick about adjectives and nouns Mon 09 Aug 2010, 11:34 pm|| |
fly a kite hell guys...ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Posts : 3079
|Subject: Re: @ nick about adjectives and nouns Tue 10 Aug 2010, 1:36 pm|| |
Wow Xaso, calm the fuc/k down. I read most of your articles, and I already said I was wrong about food being an adjective, and that upon thinking about it I recall that these noun combinations were touched upon briefly.
But just because some nouns are not adjectives does not mean no nouns can be adjectives, as shown by dictionary entries listing words as both nouns and adjectives. dictionary.com <em><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic">does</a></em> list war as all three: noun, verb, and adjective. I suspect you're using a German to English dictionary if it lists it as "the war" and "to war," because English dictionaries don't include articles or helping verbs in their entries, only in the examples. Native English speakers don't think of articles and helping verbs as being part of the word, it's almost like filler that makes the sentence sound correct to us, not a necessary component of its identity.
I was even being diplomatic in my last post and offering the reason for our argument, showing that there are two different ways of thinking about it, traditional and modern. I was taught traditional, and language nerds are being taught the modern way with things like determiners. We were both right but neither of us were right; saying that something "is" one way is foolish because nothing exists here, it is only conceptualization. But within that social construct, both of us were right because both of our ways of conceptualizing the English language are used; they are both legitimate systems.
If you reply with another angry post I'm just going to start ignoring this thread.
Posts : 12895
|Subject: Re: @ nick about adjectives and nouns Tue 10 Aug 2010, 2:05 pm|| |
the thing is that in the end i dont care WHO is right, but WHAT is right. saying both ways would work, doesnt say how it really is.
i didnt do this for the sake of the argument. im not only interested in grammar. i would go so far to call it my profession, even if its english grammar, which i dont fully control. so i really do care that the right thing comes out in the end. but like i said over and over again: saying that word change their word types like they are used is completely new for me, and it doesnt fit in the system. as you downgrade any arguments of "feeling" language because i am no native speaker i try it with roots and comparisons. which you downgrade only like that... "things change".
thats why i get angry. and thats why i wait for the answer of my email. but it looks like that they both are on holidays.
and the examples i bring are not taken by you as they are meant to be.
the food example shall show you that it is not listed as an adjective, and looking further trough the oxford dictionary, there are very very few, i only found 1 word, that can be noun AND adjective.
but still you can combine food with another noun. food product market. and neither food nor product are listed as an adjective.
and all the endless other nouns you can combine but arent listed as an adjective, which lets easily conclude that they stay nouns in such a case. and that it is wrong to call them adjective then. they are an attribute. yes. but no adjective
and is there any other way in which nouns are not used as nouns, and could be change their type? only if they are same as the verb. but always then, its listed in the dictionary
the word i found that is listed as both, noun and adjective, is mass. which doesnt prove that words change their type. it only proves that if you have a noun and an adjective that are written completely the same, that in that case, it is listed in the dictionary. but only to show that that the noun "mass" is something different than the adjective "mass". not that the word "mass" just decides what it wants to be, just like it is used.
yes and this was my last try to reach the point of this, before i wait for my emails.
Posts : 3079
|Subject: Re: @ nick about adjectives and nouns Tue 10 Aug 2010, 2:09 pm|| |
But Xaso, EVERY time a noun is an adjective it is a different definition. The word is not simply changing its type and retaining the definition. I said the dictionary has multiple definitions listed for a word, and sometimes those definitions are of a different class. In that way you may think of it as separate words spelled the same way, just as you may think that a noun with multiple definitions conveying different ideas are separate words (insofar as words represent concepts) that are spelled the same way.
The Oxford Dictionary must subscribe more to the modern approach, whereas dictionary.com subscribes to the traditional approach. According to Wikipedia, most dictionaries take the traditional approach, and most linguists take the modern approach.
Either way, you cannot be interested in what is right, because there is no right. There is only convention.
Posts : 12895
|Subject: Re: @ nick about adjectives and nouns Wed 11 Aug 2010, 1:41 am|| |
- NickdeClaw wrote:
- But Xaso, EVERY time a noun is an adjective it is a different definition. The word is not simply changing its type and retaining the definition.
so you say that when i say "product" and "product information" the definition if the word product changes? if that would be so, i would like to know what is changed there.
the noun only describes the kind of information closer. that makes "product" an attribute, but not an adjective.
but if you arent even interested in what is the standart perception of it, than why u still argue? just stay with your perception and then we can have calmness here.
Posts : 3079
|Subject: Re: @ nick about adjectives and nouns Thu 12 Aug 2010, 3:23 am|| |
That's not an instance where product is an adjective, that's an instance where it's a noun adjunct. I'm beginning to feel the difference, but it's subtle.
Posts : 12895
|Subject: Re: @ nick about adjectives and nouns Thu 12 Aug 2010, 4:37 am|| |
and then mass would be your example when a noun turns into an adjective?
or something different? can you give me an example then ?
|Subject: Re: @ nick about adjectives and nouns || |