DD: Normally I don't like to quote a lot, but the thread is 
important. In order;
>At 07:24 AM 8/11/2006, Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote:. . .
> >As to the status of "numeral", number words do not inflect.

>Lifer military DD: "Columns of twos to the left, HUT!"; "Count out by
>threes, Hut!" Teacher DD: "All the threes are acting strange today.";
>"The Europeans write their sevens like this."

>Herbert F.W. :
>This is very much like Craig's example, "rolling sevens".  These
>instances of number words are numerals functionally shifted to nouns.
>In your second example, "three" is not numerical but indexical, and in
>the third "sevens" now is the name of the symbol.  These multiple uses
>have to be covered at some point in school grammar, but I don't know
>where, probably quite late.
>The fact that these words take plural inflection is good evidence that
>they either belong to both classes or that they have undergone
>functional shift.  I'll have to think a little about how to tell those
>two possibilities apart.
>Language is messy, and we can't expect grammar to be a whole lot less
>so.  Think how boring it'd all be otherwise.

DD: I am new to the nuances of grammar. I appreciate your pointing 
out the differences. I agree with you. You are right about the 
complexities. We need parsimony, for the new to the ideas, but at 
what price? "A Noun is a name." works, for a first grader. Not for a 
graduate student. We don't want to lock that first grader into the 
idea that a noun is only a name. I am beginning to be glad I followed 
some suggestions on this list to get some standard works on the whole 
thing. I thank you all. 

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/