"The dream I had in the park last night"  the dream is located in time and space it is therefore and entity.  Conventional dictionaries are not generally considered more that vague guidelines in philosophical discussions.  

-----Original Message-----
>From: "Eduard C. Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Aug 25, 2006 8:12 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Defining Traditional Grammar
>
>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/

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/