Talk:Noun/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Michael Hardy No edit summary |
imported>Russell Potter No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
: I agree. This is terribly written. After a correct definition, we might see things like grammatical number, grammatical case, etc., then things on the syntactic roles of nouns within a sentence. The last time I read anything similar to a statement that a tree is a noun was when humor columnist Dave Barry ran his annual holier-than-thou condescending column explaining grammar. Among other things, after mentioning the idea that verbs can have objects, he explained that an object is a noun that weighs at least two pounds. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 17:16, 17 April 2007 (CDT) | : I agree. This is terribly written. After a correct definition, we might see things like grammatical number, grammatical case, etc., then things on the syntactic roles of nouns within a sentence. The last time I read anything similar to a statement that a tree is a noun was when humor columnist Dave Barry ran his annual holier-than-thou condescending column explaining grammar. Among other things, after mentioning the idea that verbs can have objects, he explained that an object is a noun that weighs at least two pounds. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 17:16, 17 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
::Agreed. And indeed, even though "tree" (the word, thus in quotes) can function as a noun, that does not necessarily mean it always ''is'' a noun. What about "fish" or "photograph"? We really need more work here from linguists; I have had a try at fixing [[Pronoun]] and [[English grammar]], but there's too much work for just one person! [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 11:23, 18 April 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 10:23, 18 April 2007
I've got nothing against simple explanations of simple things. However, this
- trees, cars, houses, people, etc. These are all nouns.
is false. A tree is not a word and hence not a noun. --Larry Sanger 13:41, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
- I agree. This is terribly written. After a correct definition, we might see things like grammatical number, grammatical case, etc., then things on the syntactic roles of nouns within a sentence. The last time I read anything similar to a statement that a tree is a noun was when humor columnist Dave Barry ran his annual holier-than-thou condescending column explaining grammar. Among other things, after mentioning the idea that verbs can have objects, he explained that an object is a noun that weighs at least two pounds. Michael Hardy 17:16, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
- Agreed. And indeed, even though "tree" (the word, thus in quotes) can function as a noun, that does not necessarily mean it always is a noun. What about "fish" or "photograph"? We really need more work here from linguists; I have had a try at fixing Pronoun and English grammar, but there's too much work for just one person! Russell Potter 11:23, 18 April 2007 (CDT)