I like those examples.  I think they would work as arguments for the nominalization analysis, but we did not consider them in the paper.

I have the same sense of annoyance when I hear newsreaders and talking heads address Ph.D. holding academics as "Doctor," without using a name.  For me that works only medical doctors.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Spruiell, William C
Sent: 2009-04-03 13:31
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: FWD: Lester's Text in the Classroom

[NOTE: I'm forwarding this on behalf of Peter Fries, whose posting got bounced by ATEG for some reason. It's delayed by a day, however; he sent it last night but I'm just now going through email]

<<<<<


Does this nominalization suffix account for distinctions such as:



a communications problem vs. a communication problem a sales manager vs. a sale manager.



While I'm writing, let me refer back to the discussion of constructions such as 'accounts receivable', in which adjectives follow nouns.



In this context, no one has mentioned an example which my prescriptive self finds particularly annoying.  I have often heard newscasters, when interviewing the attorney general of some state or of the of federal gov't, address the person as 'general'.





Peter H. Fries

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/