[This message was  originally submitted by [log in to unmask]  to the
ATEG list ]
>
> This is to carry on the discussion of whether it's necessary to use
> terminology that makes distinctions between nouns and things that may
take
> the function of nouns, etc.  {Bill McCleary [log in to unmask] to the ATEG
list }
 
[Bill,]
 
I am writing a paper now on the relationship of modern linguistics
(Chomskyan)
to traditional grammar.  This discussion raises the real issues at
stake.
 
First, there is a difference between "form" and "function."  In "the
horse barn,"
it might make sense to say that "horse" has some kind of modifying
function, but I think we miss an important generalization in saying it
is an adjective. It takes none of the inflections that adjectives do.
  By the way, this confusion makes grammar look very ad hoc.  In fact
grammar
  has an internal consistency that such definitions do not reveal.
 
Second, pronouns do not function as nouns, but noun phrases.  In fact,
it is at
the phrase level that most principles of substition or "movement" take
place.
        The Queen is unhappy.    *The she is unhappy.
        The Queen of England is unhappy.   *The she of England is
unhappy.
 
Finally, the problem with subordinate clauses is that there is no clear
structural differences among adjective, noun and adverbial clauses in
English.  German, I believe, does have some structural differences.  So
appeal has to be made to the function of the clause.
 
In point of fact, native speakers of the language possess this basic
knowledge about English.  We need to figure out how to make that
knowledge conscious.
 
 
Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University