Phil,

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "entity" as :

1. Being, existence, as opposed to non-existence; the existence, as 
distinguished from the qualities or relations, of anything.
2. That which constitutes the being of a thing; essence, essential 
nature.
3. concr. Something that has a real existence; an ens, as 
distinguished from a mere function, attribute, relation, etc. 
†rational entity: = L. ens rationis, a thing which has an existence 
only as an object of reason.

†b. An actual quantity (however small). Obs.

4. indefinitely. What exists; ‘being’ generally.


********

To claim that all nouns are "entities" is a fallacy, because it is a 
generalization. Not all nouns define material things. Hhow is "dream" 
an entity? 

Your definition of a noun is incorrect because it does not follow the 
dictionary sense of the word "notion." You are redefining the word 
according to personal criteria, and the definition does not hold. 

Also, to state that *grammar is the core of cognition* is extreme. I 
consider grammar important in education, of course, but to make it 
*the core of cognition* blows it out of any recognizable proportions.
Grammar definitely not the most important thing a student can learn.



Eduard 


 



On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Phil Bralich wrote...

>Honestly with an overreaction like that it does sound like a 
disrespectful flame.  The verbs as entities was just a typo.  Only 
nouns are entities.  
>
>>I know this is going to sound like a disrespectful flame, but I 
don't 
>>find it productive to respond to your posts. In one post, you say 
nouns 
>>are entities; in the latest one on this thread, you say that verbs 
are 
>>also entities. So what differentiates them? Didn't you say in a 
>>previous post that only nouns are entities?
>
>You seem to be over reaching a bit on this.  Are you going to deny 
all qualities in all outside experience except what comes through the 
five senses?  The term emergent quality was popular for a long time 
in speaking of consciousness where consciousness was not seen as 
primal but was seen as emergent quality of the interactions of 
senses, organs and muscles to the world out there.  We can also see 
abstract qualities as emergent emerging from the outside world into 
the brain as a word through obseravation and experience.  A a dog not 
only has four legs and hair but also is a mammal, of the species 
canine, an animal, an entity, a noun.  The present king of france is 
a well known and widely discussed problem in philosophy but 
patriotism like nounness can be seen as an emergent proptery.  
>
>>How does "canine" solve the problem of different words for dogs in 
>>different languages? And if species exist as entities, what happens 
>>when biologists revise their classification systems, as is 
currently 
>>being proposed? What happens to the entities whose class name has 
been 
>>disposed of, and they have been assigned another class? Where in 
your 
>>theory is room for different construals of "discoverable" 
properties?
>
>There is absolutely no problem for different words in different 
languages.  Nounness discoverable both in the world and in the head 
in the beginning is enough to explain that.  The choice of sounds 
comes later.  
>
>>The point of my criticism of the grammar lesson is that it doesn't 
>>teach the standard-English-speaking child anything, if the child 
just 
>>does the exercise by consulting her internalized grammar. She 
doesn't 
>>have to pay any attention at all to the terms, etc. She is likely 
to 
>>find it boring and irrelevant. These lessons are designed primarily 
to 
>>correct the language of kids who speak nonstandard English. 
>
>
>
>Grammar is the core of cognition.  The more you improve your ability 
to see the structural nuances of long and short sentences the more 
your cognitive abilities expand.  Aany work in grammar improves the 
mind in all areas.  An awareness of hisself is/are and so forth open 
the students' eyes to variation and to possible differences.  
Whatevern happens in grammar,  the brain is sharpened in a central 
way.  Any increase in grammar teaching even it if be from non-
standard dialects would never be a waste of time as long as it 
doesn't stray into formal linguistics or socio-linguistic 
discussion.  
>
>Otherwise, 
>>there would be no lessons on double negatives, "hisself", and so 
on. 
>>These do not occur in the speech of standard-English-speaking 
children. 
>>They occur in some young children when they are going through the 
phase 
>>of overgeneralizing English morphology rules, but this phase 
passes, 
>>with or without grammar instruction. Children will leave the forms 
>>behind simply by observing the language in their social circle.
>
>
>But using that as the main motivation for teaching it isn't going 
>>to convince many people. 
>
>I beg to differ, I think if grammarians were more proactive in 
reminding people of this fact, grammar teaching would return 
overnight.  This is particularly true given the area of critical 
thinking which is so important these days.  
>
>Teaching grammar for its most valuable purpose 
>>-- acquainting children with how language works in communication -- 
>>will incidentally cultivate analytical thinking skills. 
>
>The thinking skills are crucial the communication is ancillary.  
>
>>Please, statements like "I honestly cannot believe you will find 
many 
>>people who would see those exercises as problematic" are specious. 
>>Obviously, hundreds of people have found them problematic, hence 
the 
>>"war on grammar" and NCTE's position.
>
>
>Sorry no.  You are just wrong on this point.  There were never more 
bad grammar books then there were bad algebra books, bad history 
books or any other bad books.  It is all hokum and it is largely 
politically motivated.  The evidence to the contrary is as sketchy 
and anecdotal as that for Bigfoot and UFOs.  
>
>>
>>Quite a while ago, I asked you specifically to respond to a 
challenge 
>>to one of your arguments. You never did. 
>
>My choice. At that point and now.   In some cases I find you a 
little hostile and overreactive.  
>
>You never responded to a 
>>number of my arguments, such as the claim that grammar instruction 
as 
>>currently done in K-12 is discriminatory against children whose 
native 
>>language is nonstandard English. 
>
>I missed that one.  In general I believe teaching ebonics as well as 
Hawaii pigeon and the like will always result in heightened thinking 
skills as welll as heightened standard and non-standard dialect 
skills.  
>
>
>Also please remember there are whole weeks when I don't read this 
list at all.  I have a full schedule as a professor and do not always 
read everthing.  
>
>Phil Bralich
>
>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/