tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114385.post4535538167044509124..comments2023-12-20T08:35:04.633+00:00Comments on Lingua Frankly: Everyone understands grammar.Titchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03003350618976942468noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114385.post-44850748318300268532020-03-06T18:39:05.452+00:002020-03-06T18:39:05.452+00:00Sorry, Unknown, but his definitions are technicall...Sorry, Unknown, but his definitions <b>are</b> technically wrong, in the most pedantic sense.<br /><br />When he says anything you can put "the" before is a noun, he doesn't say anything about what else is there, and he never specifies that it has to form a complete phrase. In "the white house", "the" comes before "white".<br /><br />The same goes for saying adjectives are anything you can put after is/am/are -- in "I am the leader", there is no adjective at all, and a strict literal interpretation of his rule defines "the" as an adjective. Also "we are warriors" -- the literal interpretation claims "warriors" is an adjective.<br /><br />From a truly pedantic angle, his definition of "verb" is the most incorrect, though -- "will", "can", "must" etc are never preceded by "to", and then there's the identical-looking preposition "to" which comes before noun phrases.<br /><br />The lesson from this isn't that his teaching was bad, but rather that you don't have to be technically correct when teaching someone conscious awareness of something they already unconsciously know.Titchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03003350618976942468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114385.post-52270799192816632512019-09-13T17:13:13.001+01:002019-09-13T17:13:13.001+01:00Sorry, but your example of how his definition of n...Sorry, but your example of how his definition of noun is wrong, is actually wrong.<br /><br />in your example, one would be saying "the white"<br /><br />That does not make sense.<br /><br />The only example that was sort of correct, were proper nouns, however I think everyone gets them, and he was not really referring to them.<br /><br />His definition of adjective, anything that can come after am/is, also is much clearer, and simple.<br /><br />I'm sure there are exceptions, where his definitions are wrong, however the example of "white house" being a trivial disproof is just not correct.<br /><br />THE house IS whiteUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01282268474373532099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114385.post-80985033312071475082012-08-06T19:22:33.012+01:002012-08-06T19:22:33.012+01:00No, actually, you're right - they're wrong...No, actually, you're right - they're wrong. Because they're utterly incomplete.<br /><br />I think the definitions we're given are an attempt to formulate in English the sort of label other languages take for granted, seeing as we have stuck with (mostly) latinate terms that mean nothing to an English speaker. You could encapsulate the meaning of the common descriptions in one word each: namer, doer, describer.<br /><br />At that level, I think we'd be more likely to accept the ambiguity, but when you formalise it as a rule, people expect a greater degree of precision.<br /><br />Thank you for making me stop and think. Be assured that even when it looks like I've dismissed something out of hand, it does tend to churn away at the back of my mind for a while....Titchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03003350618976942468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114385.post-70631294359316548092012-08-05T23:59:01.805+01:002012-08-05T23:59:01.805+01:00Well, you may have noticed that I'm not exactl...Well, you may have noticed that I'm <a href="http://linguafrankly.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/dangers-of-overinterpretation-and.html" rel="nofollow">not exactly a fan of Pinker</a>...<br /><br />I think Pinker is overstating by saying that they're wrong -- rather I'd say that they're a really clumsy and horrendously unclear.<br /><br />While a word class is best identified by studying it in reference to slots, that doesn't mean it's best <i>taught</i> that way. How long would the definition of the English adjective be? Would it be of any practical use?Titchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03003350618976942468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114385.post-69904417131394242072012-08-05T15:45:34.316+01:002012-08-05T15:45:34.316+01:00Er, I meant you're not your. How embarrassing....Er, I meant you're not your. How embarrassing.random reviewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30114385.post-45852134304553505172012-08-05T15:44:28.660+01:002012-08-05T15:44:28.660+01:00Nice article, but I would like to add that I have ...Nice article, but I would like to add that I have read at least one linguist (Steven Pinker in a popular work) claim that the traditional rule is not correct, so it might be no more correct (or incorrect) than what Thomas said. Also, I thought modern linguistics actually defined word classes to a large extent based on what slots they can occupy in a sentence, which is more or less what Thomas was doing. At any rate, I think your spot on that he was only evoking concepts we already have and did it in a very economical and effective way.random reviewnoreply@blogger.com