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/