Peter,
 
The heavy use of "name" in those definitions may be partly a legacy of the history of the term itself ("noun" basically meant "name") and partly because the Renaissance tradition Lowth et al.  had inherited was itself influenced (unsurprisingly) by medieval philosophy, and there were some important philosophical consequences of viewing a noun as a name rather than as a cue that led to representation. I doubt Lowth was weighing in on any of those philosophical arguments by using the definition he did -- it had just become common practice when defining nouns in any language by the time Lowth was born.  
 
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English 
Central Michigan University

________________________________

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Peter Adams
Sent: Wed 6/11/2008 12:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Anthimeria: Hell in a handbasket


Definitions have all the vices Jesperson and Ed complain of, for sure.  And yet, how my students cry out for them.  They seem to think, and they may be right, that being able to sort things--words, for instance,--into categories is a necessary step on the path to using them effectively. 

By the way, I've always wondered why Lowth and almost every handbook author since want to say a noun is the NAME of something.  My students find that definition very confusing when they come to learn what proper nouns are . . . names of things in a different sense.  Perhaps it would be clearer for novices to say nouns are words that represent . . . persons, places, things, abstract ideas, anything that exists.  The last part is the hard part, but I've always resisted saying nouns are names.

Peter Adams



On Jun 11, 2008, at 12:28 PM, Edgar Schuster wrote:


	Bill (and others),
	     For what it's worth---and I'm not sure it's worth much---I have a Murray definition of noun as "the name of any thing that exists, or of which we have any notion."  Lowth wrote "the Name of a thing; of whatever we conceive in any way to subsist, or of which we have any notion."
	     Maybe this comment from Otto Jespersen is worth a lot more:  "If there is one thing I dislike in grammar, it is definitions (of parts of speech) too often met with in our textbooks.  They are neither exhaustive nor true; they have not, and cannot have, the precision and clearness of the definitions found in textbooks of mathematics . . . .  And thus we might go on to the definitions found even in the best grammars: they are unsatisfactory, all of them, and I do not think they are necessary."
	The English Journal [!!!], 1924
	
	Ed Schuster
	
	
	**************
	Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best 2008.
	(http://citysbest.aol.com?ncid=aolacg00050000000102 <http://citysbest.aol.com/?ncid=aolacg00050000000102> ) To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" 

	Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/


= To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" 

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ 


To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/