[This  message was  originally submitted  by Robert Einarsson,
[log in to unmask]  to the ATEG list ]
 
To contribute to the discussion on whether it is necessary to make
distinctions between nouns and things that may carry the function of
nouns:
 
In "Considerations Concerning the First Formation of Languages" Adam
Smith distinguishes between "nouns substantive," "nouns objective,"
"nouns adjective,"  and probably others.
 
"But though the invention of nouns adjective be much more natural
than that of the abstract nouns substantive derived from them, it
would still, however, require a considerable degree of abstraction
and generalization."  -Adam Smith.
 
This type of reasoning might help explain the "horse barn" question.
 
Personally, I would say that "horse" is an adjective if it is used as
an adjective (just as "try" is a noun and "mountain" is an
adjective).
 
But "horse" when used as an adjective is a particular kind of
sub-type: an adjective that derives from a substantive originally.
 
If we want to explain these close differences between types of nouns
(nouns substantive and nouns adjective), this would be a good way to
go about it.  However, the question of sub-types among nouns does not
bear upon the question of defining grammatical elements by function.
There are six functions that define every element of English grammar,
whether that function takes place on a single word, a complete
phrase, or a complete depencent clause.  In addition, a gerund is a
noun, a pronoun is a noun, even an infinitive verb is a noun (the
name of an action not actually occurring).  It does help in teaching
grammar to brush aside the complicated sub-categories and extremely
fine distinctions, before the students are even aware of the major
elements.
 
 
 
Sincerely, Robert Einarsson
please visit my web site at
www.artsci.gmcc.ab.ca/people/einarssonb