Jean:

I am not sure a first grader would have too much fun with this very  
theoretical discussion on the definition of nouns. I cannot imagine 
myself getting into such details when he might have trouble figuring 
out why his mother wakes him up and sends him away from home to do 
something he doesn't like and has trouble understanding. With people 
like him who "find grammar confusing" I would want to be as clear as 
possible: A noun is a car, a doll, a pencil, a cloud. I am sure he 
will have plenty of time later to split the hairs. 

Eduard  




On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, Jean Waldman wrote...

> 
>
> 
>
>From: "Jean Waldman" <[log in to unmask]>
>
>To: "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" 
<[log in to unmask]>
>
>Subject: Re: Notional Nouns
>
>Date: Monday, August 21, 2006 11:35 AM
>
> 
>
> 
>
> 
>
>One reason people find grammar confusing is that they are forced to 
memorize notional definitions that have no relation to the actual use 
of language.  We should be able to develop a more descriptive 
notional definition, one that can be used to help people, from 
kindergarten to old age, to be aware of what they are doing when they 
use a common noun.  I am not opposed to notional definitions.  I am 
opposed to irrelevant notional definitions, as exemplified by this 
recitation of person, place, or thing.   
>
> 
>
>We all agree that the word chair is a noun: that, in fact, it 
belongs to the subclass we call common nouns.  
>
> 
>
>So if I send you the word chair, by speaking the word chair, or 
providing it on paper or on a computer screen, what information does 
the word chair provide for your mind?    Does chair have four legs, 
or none at all?  Does it have arms?  Is it padded?  
>
> 
>
>The fact is, I did not give you that information.  When I gave you 
the word alone, I did not name a person, place or thing.  I did 
indicate a reference to a single member of a class of objects.  You 
could tell it was singular because there was no s on the end.  The 
word chair usually refers to a device to support the human body in a 
particular position.  If you want more information about it, you have 
to look at other words around it when I use it with the intention of 
giving information.  The word chair, therefore, is a classifying 
word.  
>
> 
>
>This analysis seems like irrelevant minutiae until you try to help a 
foreign student understand the significance of those words around the 
common noun.  
>
> 
>
>You can do a lot of talking and writing and make long lists, but do 
they really provide an understanding of the functioning language?
>
> 
>
>Analysis, not repetition of theories, is a crucial step to 
understanding English grammar.    Of course, the more theories you 
can apply to the analysis, the more useful it becomes. 
>
> 
>
>Historically, this is my supposition.  Common nouns were called 
common because they indicated classes that had characteristics in 
common.  This descriptive definition proved difficult for hurried 
teachers to use, and, besides, the word common became associated with 
lower class or vulgar.  The word proper, on the other hand, was held 
in high esteem, so teachers borrowed the proper definition for the 
common noun.  Maybe we could call them specific or naming nouns and 
classifying nouns, instead of proper and common nouns.   
>
> 
>
>Jean Waldman, retired lecturer, 
>
>University of Maryland 
>
> 
>
> 
>
> 
>
>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/